list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention response format, pagination, VDOM behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal information for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource without any filler. It is concise and to the point, containing only essential information.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic object type but omits details that would aid an agent, such as whether system predefined services are included, the response structure, or when the device parameter can be omitted. The lack of annotations further increases the need for context, making this moderate.

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 100%, as both parameters (vdom and device) have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'protocol and port ranges' is about the returned objects, not the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's action ('List') and the resource ('custom service objects'), further specified as 'protocol and port ranges'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_address_objects and list_interfaces, which list different resource types.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate. The schema hints at parameter usage, but the description itself offers no selection context.

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