balena_list_services

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior (top/skip) or return format. It simply repeats the 'list' action, which is redundant with the name and annotations.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately brief. However, it lacks any additional structure or context—there is no mention of parameters, return value, or usage notes. It is concise to the point of being minimal, which is acceptable for a trivial tool but does not earn higher marks for structure.

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?

For a tool with three parameters (including pagination controls) and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what a 'service' is in this context, how pagination works, or how to scope to a specific fleet. The agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly without additional information from the schema (which is also sparse) or external knowledge.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only parent_id has a description), and the description itself does not explain any parameters. It fails to mention that top and skip control pagination or that parent_id is an optional scope filter. With such low schema coverage, the description carries no compensating value, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('services'), and a scope ('for a fleet'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like balena_list_fleets and balena_list_devices. It directly answers what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other list tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the many list tools available.

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