get_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The description indicates a read operation ('List'), which is inherently non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then listing return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (list operation with one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does and what fields are returned. No additional details (e.g., pagination) are necessary.

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 input schema fully describes the single optional parameter with an enum and default behavior ('Omit for both'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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's purpose: 'List configured Radarr/Sonarr servers.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('servers'), and lists the fields returned (ID, name, isDefault, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_service_details' which likely retrieves a single server.

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 the tool is for retrieving all configured servers and mentions the fields returned. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_service_details' or state when to use this versus alternatives, e.g., for an overview vs. detailed info.

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