get_service

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it retrieves information. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the detailed breakdown of returned data (dependency tree, health calculation, SLA metrics, alert configuration) and a troubleshooting workflow, which fully informs the agent about what to expect.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, making it easy to scan. However, it is somewhat lengthy and contains some redundancy (e.g., 'dependency tree' mentioned in two places). Still, every sentence adds value, earning a 4.

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 tool's complexity (detailed service info) and lack of output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (dependency tree, health, SLA, alert config), usage context, and a workflow. No gaps remain for an agent to understand its purpose and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing examples for the 'fields' parameter (e.g., "id,displayName,hostStatus") and noting the default behavior when omitted, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 ('Get'), resource ('detailed information about a specific service'), and scope ('by ID' in LogicMonitor monitoring). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_services (which lists services) by specifying retrieval of a single service's details.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section outlines five specific use cases (review dependencies, check health, verify SLA, troubleshoot, understand architecture). Provides a workflow: use list_services first, then this tool. Lists related tools (list_services, update_service, list_resources) for alternative actions.

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