service_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), which is transparent about non-mutative behavior. It could additionally mention idempotency or lack of side effects, but the current description is sufficient for a read tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear heading followed by bullet points for 'Best for', 'Prerequisites', 'Next steps', and 'Related'. Every sentence adds value, and the format is 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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides a fairly complete picture: it lists the kinds of information returned (configuration, status, deployment details, health) and includes usage context with prerequisites and next steps. It lacks mention of error conditions or authorization, but for a simple read tool, it is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by hinting that environmentId is typically obtained from service_list, but does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. Thus, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed information about a specific service, with explicit use cases like viewing configuration, status, deployment details, and health monitoring. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_list (listing) and service_update (mutation).

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?

Excellent guidance: mentions 'Prerequisites: service_list', 'Next steps: deployment_list, variable_list', and 'Related: service_update, deployment_trigger'. This tells the agent when to use this tool and suggests relevant alternatives, making the usage context very clear.

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