get_service_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It names the returned metrics (CPU, memory, network), which is helpful but doesn't specify data format, units, whether it's real-time or averaged, or if repeated calls are expensive. The tool appears to be read-only, but this is implied rather than explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of reasonable length. It is front-loaded with core information but misses no additional context. While concise, it's not structured with formatting that enhances readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters (both required, 100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description feels adequate but not thorough. It covers the basic function and metrics returned, but for a monitoring tool, it would benefit from clarifying data types, update frequency, or error conditions (e.g., service not found).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions no parameter details beyond what's in the schema (projectName, serviceName). It doesn't explain naming conventions or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns metrics (CPU, memory, network) for a specific service. It uses a specific verb ('Retorna' / Returns) and resource ('métricas de um serviço'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_system_stats (system-level) and list_projects (project listing). However, it could more explicitly differentiate from get_docker_stats or inspect_service.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use get_service_stats vs get_system_stats vs get_docker_stats, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., service must be running). This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.