list_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser, and on failure the agent should report the error rather than fall back to browser automation. It also warns that several services can share a name (one per process group), which affects interpretation of results. It does not cover rate limits or return/pagination detail beyond what the schema's `limit` already says.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the returned metrics, then filtering, then investigation recipes, then the runtime caveat about the browser extension. Three dense paragraphs where each sentence earns its place; slightly long but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by enumerating the returned metrics and noting that the response header resolves the absolute UTC window and that `limit` reports omitted counts. All 10 parameters are documented, and it routes the agent to `dynatrace_bridge_status` for environment names the description cannot list.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds meaning beyond the schema: partial matching for `service_type` ('a part such as "database" is enough'), case-sensitivity of `tag` versus case-insensitive `name`, and that all sort keys rank highest-first with `name` as the exception. It also notes the duplicate-name/id disambiguation, which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the services Dynatrace monitors') plus the exact metrics returned (avg/p90 response time, failure rate, request count, RPM). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `service_overview` as the follow-up for a single service and positioning itself as the entry point for service investigations.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: find a service id, identify slow/failing/busy services, and start any service investigation. It maps concrete intent to arguments ('which services are slow → sort: "response_time"') and names the alternative (`service_overview`) for drilling into one service.

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