list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'with API groups' hints at return structure, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, or potential limitations. It is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output grouping.

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's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description gives a high-level indication of the return value ('services with API groups') but lacks specifics about the structure or contents of each service. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description need not explain any parameters. It adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 'List registered services with API groups' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('services'), and adds a qualifier ('with API groups') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apis and list_projects. This is a clear, actionable statement of the tool's function.

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 implies its use for retrieving services but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The resource type provides implicit differentiation from sibling tools, but no explicit guidance is given.

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