get_trace_services

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the deviceType:6 scoping constraint and the 'entry point' role, which is useful context, but it does not disclose response format or pagination behavior. The added value is modest, so 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no redundant words. The main action ('List APM trace services') is front-loaded, and the technical detail and usage hint are tightly packed. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and robust read-only annotations, the description and schema together provide enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The 'Entry point' hint helps with chaining. A small gap is that the description does not mention the response shape, but this is minor for a read-only list operation.

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%: limit is described as 'Max results' and namespace as 'Filter by service name (substring match)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('List APM trace services') and adds the distinguishing technical detail 'deviceType:6'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_trace_operations and get_trace_service_metrics by focusing on the services themselves, and the 'Entry point' phrase reinforces its role.

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 'Entry point for discovering traced services' phrase gives a clear context for when to use this tool: as the first step in exploring trace data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_trace_service) or state when not to use it, so some inference is still required.

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