Services by State

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the result is a current snapshot and may include acknowledged/downtime-covered services, which is why cross-checking is needed. This is useful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a necessary workflow caveat without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and cross-tool workflow. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds practical semantic value by recommending state='critical' for the common incident question. This helps an agent choose the right enum value for the typical use case beyond what the schema lists.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: 'Services currently in a given state.' The word 'currently' distinguishes it from historical state-change tools, and the example state='critical' anchors the intended query. It clearly identifies itself as a current-state listing tool, not a downtime or acknowledgement list.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Pass state="critical" for the usual "what is broken" question.' It also names sibling alternatives and instructs the agent to check list_service_acknowledgements and list_service_downtimes before reporting an incident, providing concrete when-not-to-use guidance.

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