Core: List API services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden, and it does well: read-only, not billed, live, not paginated, results scoped to the key's tenant, and credentials neither stored nor returned. Its one real gap is the auth requirement, which it does spell out (METRECEPT_API_KEY on stdio, Bearer on remote HTTP), so that is covered too, but it never says what happens on an invalid or missing key, and pagination is only dismissed in passing.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what is listed and what is returned, then the call-site guidance, then the operational facts. Every clause is load-bearing: no repetition of the title and no filler.

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 no explanation, yet the description still previews the returned fields. Auth, billing, caching/liveness, pagination, tenant scoping and sibling routing are all present, which is more than enough for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot add anything and the baseline is a 4. The description adds the relevant scoping fact that results are limited to the calling key's tenant, which is the only semantic detail a parameterless call needs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List the tenant's registered third-party API services") and enumerates what each entry carries (name, base URL, path prefix, auth header name and purpose), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling registration/removal tools it names.

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?

States an explicit use case ("confirm a service name before metrecept_call_api") and routes the agent to the correct siblings for the adjacent operations: metrecept_register_api_service and metrecept_unregister_api_service. When-to-use and alternatives are both present.

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