Get service actions

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing that it wraps Services.get + Services.getActions(current_status) and that results depend on the service's current state, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core meaning, examples, and implementation context without filler. The key output and state-dependence are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description explains the output and the state-dependent nature of the result. It does not explicitly describe the return format or empty/error cases, but the examples and annotation coverage make it adequately complete for calling the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'a service' but does not explicitly name service_id or explain its role; the schema provides the integer constraint. The semantic connection is clear but implicit.

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 output: the operations Blesta allows on a service given its current state, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from action siblings like suspend_service or cancel_service and from service-listing tools like get_client_services.

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 use case is clear: determine which operations are valid for a service in its current state before performing an action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its unique purpose makes the intended usage evident.

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