team_get_services

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It does specify the type of data returned (host, port, status, ranking, scores, check results), which gives some transparency, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the output structure or any potential side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource, then lists the specific details returned. No wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the returned data. However, it does not specify the exact structure (e.g., array vs. object) or any error conditions, and it lacks any comparison with similar sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'team_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves all services for a team and enumerates the details included (host, port, status, ranking, scores, and last ten check results). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'team_get_services_status', which appears to focus only on status.

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 regarding when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'team_get_services_status' or 'service_get_checks'. The description only states what it does, not the specific use cases or exclusions.

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