get_services

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

The description only indicates a 'get' operation (read) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default limits, rate limits, or effects on data. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The presence of a 'limit' parameter implies pagination, but this is not mentioned in the description.

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 concise sentence that covers both usage modes. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word serves a purpose. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but present) and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on typical use cases, response format hints, or behavior when no filters are applied. For a simple read tool, it is acceptable but could be more informative.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it does not explain filter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool retrieves PagerDuty services either by filters or by a specific service ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'services' are explicit, and the two modes are distinct. Sibling tools like get_incidents or get_teams target different resources, so purpose differentiation is natural.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the resource name itself implies usage for services, and siblings are for other resources. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are stated, which is a gap for a tool with multiple filter modes.

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