list_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing discloses what 'services' are, what 'keywords' mean, whether data is cached or live, or what output shape to expect. The description adds almost nothing beyond the implication of the verb.

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 six-word sentence with zero filler and the core purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance — arguably under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no annotations, 0% schema parameter coverage, and sibling tools in the same API domain, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what a successful response looks like, how environments differ, or when this beats call_api/fetch_swagger. Critical selection and invocation information is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It loosely maps 'keywords' to showKeywords, but doesn't explain what keywords are or how the boolean controls output. The 'environment' parameter (local/qa) receives no explanation at all, leaving an agent unsure how environment changes the result set.

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 clear verb and resource ('List available services') with an object ('their keywords'), so an agent knows roughly what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like smart_api_call, call_api, or fetch_swagger, and 'services' is ambiguous (registry entries? API endpoints?). This is a clear statement of purpose but without sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, which include overlapping API-related tools (smart_api_call, fetch_swagger, call_api). No mention of discovery vs invocation, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative routing. An agent must infer how this tool fits into the workflow.

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