get_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'gets details,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose potential error behaviors (e.g., not-found handling), required IAM permissions, rate limits, or what specific details are returned. For a tool without annotations, this is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficiently structured and immediately understandable, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing necessary content.

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?

This is a simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description offers only the bare minimum. Given the lack of annotations, the description should clarify what details are returned, potential failure cases, or any special handling. Without this, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior, making the description incomplete for a tool with no other structured context.

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%, with each parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema adequately documents all parameters and the description does not compensate or enrich them further.

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 a specific verb ('gets') and a well-defined resource ('details for a specific Cloud Run service'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from list_services, which presumably lists all services. This is a precise, non-tautological statement that unambiguously identifies the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., list_services for enumeration, get_service_log for logs). There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the generic 'gets details' phrasing, leaving the agent to infer when this should be chosen over other tools.

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