Show service details

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

Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns status, config, and resource limits, but does't disclose response format or behavior for a missing service, so it provides only modest additional behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every clause adds relevant qualification (single, app or addon, status/config/limits). 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?

For a simple read-only show operation with rich annotations, the description covers when to use it and broadly what result to expect. It is slightly incomplete only in parameter semantics and lack of an explicit output shape.

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 0% description coverage and the description doesn't explain 'project' or 'service' beyond calling a service a Lizard app/addon. The names are suggestive, but for a tool with no parameter docs the description should compensate, and it mostly doesn't.

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 uses a specific verb ('details about') with a single resource type ('Lizard service') and enumerates the content (status, config, resource limits), which clearly separates it from sibling list and port-specific tools.

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?

It explicitly frames when to use: 'Use this when the user wants details about a single Lizard service.' It doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a single-resource read operation.

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