Get Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'all known services' and the source, which clarifies scope but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, or result ordering. Since annotations cover the main behavioral concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and efficiently conveys the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition; it earns its place. The minor typo 'know' does not detract from the structural clarity.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and scope. It might be improved by distinguishing 'services' from other resource types, but given the tool's simplicity and the available output schema, the description is adequate and complete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to add. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 'Get the list of all know services from Itential Platform Gateway Manager', providing a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('services'), and a scope ('all known', from Gateway Manager). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_adapters or get_gateways, as it targets a distinct resource.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer exclusions or mention sibling tools. However, the scope 'from Itential Platform Gateway Manager' implies that this is the tool for listing services within that context. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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