get_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only nature ('Get the list') and the source, but omits potential details such as authorization requirements, pagination, or output format. For a simple parameterless getter this is minimally acceptable, but it adds little beyond the name.

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 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary fluff. Despite a minor typo, the structure is optimally concise and easy to parse.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides a basic but adequate overview of the action. However, it does not address usage context, alternatives, or any caveats, making it less complete for an agent navigating a large sibling toolset. The description is functional but not rich.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters earns a baseline of 4, and there is no gap needing compensation.

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 retrieves a list of services from Itential Platform Gateway Manager, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('services'). It distinguishes from sibling getters by naming the unique resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. The typo 'know' instead of 'known' is minor and does not obscure meaning.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without situational cues to decide between get_services and sibling getters like get_applications or get_gateways.

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