waroom_get_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like pagination handling beyond the input parameters. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both 'page' and 'per_page' parameters including defaults and constraints. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without needing additional explanation in the description.

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 'サービスの一覧を取得します' (Get a list of services) clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('サービスの一覧' - list of services), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'waroom_get_service_labels' or 'waroom_get_service_architecture_context', which also retrieve service-related data but with different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'waroom_get_incidents' or 'waroom_get_postmortems', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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