list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is sufficient for this simple tool. However, it does not disclose any potential caveats such as permission needs or platform limitations beyond the 'Windows' mention.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word 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?

The tool is simple, with only two optional parameters and full schema coverage. The description adequately explains the core function, and the output schema covers return values. It does not mention the filtering capability, but the schema already documents that, so a 4 is appropriate.

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% because both parameters (filter_name and status_filter) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it relies fully on the schema—this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'Windows services' plus the informative detail 'with their status.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like list_processes or list_packages by specifying the resource type.

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 makes the tool's use case obvious: when you need to see Windows services and their status. Since there is no sibling tool for services, explicit alternatives are unnecessary. The context is clear, though it lacks explicit '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.