list_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns some credit for signalling that load errors are reported alongside successes, which tells the agent this is a diagnostic surface that may return partial-failure entries, but it says nothing about output shape, ordering, or pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields following. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or restated from annotations.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned facets. The gap is that it never indicates the structure or granularity of those results, but for a trivial zero-argument lister this is close to 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is required beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

"List loaded services" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the tail enumerates what each entry surfaces (profiles, session status, tools, load errors). The purpose is unambiguous, though it makes no attempt to position itself against the sibling 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?

The word "loaded" implies this is a runtime/inventory inspection, which hints at when it applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., diagnosing why a service is unavailable) and no named alternative among forget_session, logout, or self_test.

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