get_service_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get the service type') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The example adds minimal context but lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a relevant example. Both sentences add value, with no wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and return values, which are essential for a tool in this context with siblings that perform related operations. The example helps but doesn't fill these gaps adequately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific service' and provides an example with '/rosapi/topics', which hints at the parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain the 'service' parameter's format, constraints, or semantics beyond the basic example. This is insufficient for a tool with one undocumented parameter.

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 'Get the service type for a specific service', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('service type'), but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_service_details' or 'get_topic_type'. The example adds some specificity but doesn't fully distinguish the tool's unique purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_details' or 'get_services'. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.