get_service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context ('approved service', 'current state') but omits behavioral details such as read-only nature, return format, permissions, or error behavior. It's minimally adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently states the tool's action and target, earning its place despite its brevity.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what 'state' means, what a return value looks like, or what 'approved service' implies. Given sibling tools and no annotations, more context would improve completeness.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. While parameter names (instance_name, service_name) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on format, allowed values, or how they relate to the 'approved service' concept, leaving the agent to infer entirely from names.

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 ('check') and resource ('state of an approved service on an instance'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_instance_health (instance-level) and get_recent_errors (errors), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for checking service status but offers no context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_service_journal or get_instance_metrics.

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