services_goto

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description never explains what is destroyed or changed. The inclusion of 'POST' hints that this is not a pure read, which weakly supports the non-read-only annotation, yet the destructive and open-world characteristics are entirely undisclosed.

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 short lines with the purpose first and the endpoint second; nothing is padded. Brevity here reflects thin content rather than bloat, so the structure itself is sound.

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 parameter documentation, and a destructive annotation, the definition leaves key questions open: what the link is, whether it is single-use or expiring, and what side effect justifies destructiveHint=true. For a mutating, open-world tool this is notably under-described.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning; the endpoint path '{id}' does imply the parameter identifies a service, which is a modest addition. It still omits any validation, format, or behavioral notes about the id.

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 verb and resource ('Get goto link for service') and pins it to the endpoint POST /services/{id}/goto, so the agent knows it fetches some link tied to a service. However, 'goto link' is never defined, and the phrase reads like a trivial read, so the actual purpose is only loosely conveyed.

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 this should be called versus siblings such as services_get_by_id or services_connect_remote_vnc, and no preconditions are stated. The agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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