inspect_service

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Clearly states it returns configuration (read operation) and implies safety by advising use before updates. Lacks details on auth, rate limits, or response size, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with output description, then clear usage instruction. No extraneous information, highly efficient.

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's comprehensive nature and many sibling tools, the description is adequate: it explains what is returned and when to use. Could mention it's the counterpart to update tools, but overall complete for a read tool without output schema.

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% for two simple params (projectName, serviceName) with descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema provides, which is acceptable baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it returns complete configuration and lists specific aspects (source, env vars, etc.). Verb 'retorna' + resource 'serviço' is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_env_vars or get_exposed_ports, but the comprehensive nature is implied.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use before any update to preserve state ('Use SEMPRE antes de qualquer update para preservar o estado.'). Provides clear context and when to use, but no mention of when not to use or alternatives.

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