winops_svc_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by documenting the exact return format and the dependency error when pywin32 is not installed.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for return format, examples, and errors. Every element serves a purpose and there is no redundant prose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides the full return JSON structure, practical examples, and error conditions. For a simple two-parameter list operation with strong annotations, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents both filter_status and include_system. The description's examples demonstrate usage patterns but do not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists Windows services with optional status filtering. It distinguishes from start/stop/restart operations, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling winops_svc_status, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Examples show valid invocations with filter_status and include_system, implying when to use those options. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over winops_svc_status nor when not to use it, leaving the usage context only partially implied.

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