inspect_all_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] comprehensive information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the information is in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The example adds minimal but useful syntactic clarification. There's no wasted text, though the example could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of inspecting 'all services' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive information' entails, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., performance impact for many services). Without this context, an agent might struggle to use the tool effectively or interpret its output.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 with the verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive information about all services including types and providers.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_services' by specifying 'comprehensive information' and mentioning 'types and providers,' which suggests more detailed output than basic listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_service_details' or 'get_service_providers,' which could cause confusion.

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. With siblings like 'get_services,' 'get_service_details,' and 'get_service_providers,' it's unclear whether this tool should be used for a high-level overview, detailed inspection, or as a replacement for other tools. The example only shows syntax without context, offering no usage rules or exclusions.

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