list_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List' and mentions live health status, but it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. While adequate for a simple list tool, it falls short of full transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then listing the specific services. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact scope (all 7 microservices), the content (metadata and current health status), and even enumerates all service names, giving the agent full context to understand the tool's 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on what the tool returns. It adds no parameter-related semantics because there are none to describe.

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 lists all 7 microservices in the FinPay platform with metadata and current health status. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('microservices'), and enumerates the exact services included, distinguishing it from siblings like list_payment_hubs.

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 makes it obvious when to use this tool: to list all microservices. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, such as using get_system_health for health-only queries. The naming and scope imply usage, but no direct comparison to siblings is given.

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