opnsense_svc_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic function without revealing whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a simple list operation, this is a notable gap.

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 consists of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded with the action 'List all services', and contains no extraneous 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description does not hint at the structure of the response (e.g., service name, status format). While the information provided is sufficient for basic usage, mentioning the return format would enhance completeness.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but none is required.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'List all services and their running status'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('services'), and the addition of 'running status' distinguishes it from other list tools, such as opnsense_dhcp_list_leases or opnsense_fw_list_rules, which list different resources.

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 implies that the tool is used to retrieve service status, which is straightforward. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opnsense_svc_control (which likely controls services) or other service-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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