list_services

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add real context by naming the platform-specific backend that will be queried, but it stays silent on permission requirements and on the fact that state vocabularies differ per platform — which it half-implies via examples.

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 short lines with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second line reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but it is efficient and adds information rather than repeating the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves name_contains undocumented and gives no routing guidance against service_status, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does give concrete state values (running/stopped on Windows, running/failed/active on systemd), which is genuinely useful given there are no enums. But name_contains — the second of two parameters — is never mentioned, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('List services') and adds the cross-platform backends (systemd, Get-Service, launchctl), which sharpens what is actually being enumerated. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling service_status, so an agent must guess which one to reach for.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this listing tool versus service_status, or of any prerequisites. The only hint is the parameter fragment about 'state', which implies filtering but leaves the alternative path unexplained.

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