ros2_get_services

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation, and 'active ... available in the graph' clarifies scope. It lacks detail about possible empty results or daemon dependencies, but for a no-argument introspection tool this is reasonable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the relationship to ros2_call_service, but that is not essential for this tool's own invocation.

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 parameter semantics are trivially covered by the empty input schema. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active ROS2 services available in the graph'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ros2_get_nodes, ros2_get_topics, and ros2_call_service.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ros2_call_service for invoking a service or ros2_health_check for graph status. The context of service discovery is implied but not stated.

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