pagerduty_list_services

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it lists all services with optional name filter. It omits details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond api_key, and what happens on empty results, leaving significant gaps.

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 covering the main purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could include more context without being verbose.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on response format, pagination, and prerequisites. The calibration example for a similar tool scored higher due to more complete context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats the name filter capability already in the schema ('Filter services by name'), adding no new meaning for the other parameters.

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 verb 'List', resource 'services', and scope 'in a PagerDuty account', with an optional name filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like incident or oncalls, which are different entities.

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 usage for listing services, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling service tools, so it's not misleading, but guidance on when to choose this over other PagerDuty tools is absent.

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