get_service_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the list takes (e.g., JSON array, paginated). The example hints at input format but lacks output details, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the example is concise and relevant. There's no wasted text, and the structure supports quick understanding without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (querying service providers in what appears to be a ROS context), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('service') documented only by title and type. The description implies 'service' is a string (via the example '/rosapi/topics') but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid service name, expected format, or if it's a ROS service path. This provides some context but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get list of nodes that provide a specific service.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of nodes'), and the example reinforces this by showing usage with a service parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_services' (which likely lists available services rather than providers) or 'get_service_details' (which might provide detailed info about a service).

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 alternatives. It includes an example but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'get_services' and 'get_service_details', the agent must infer usage based on naming alone, which is insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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