service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It states the tool is read-only implicitly ('returns'), but does not explicitly declare side effects. It adds that no sudo is required. More transparency about being read-only or potential rate limits would improve it.

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 three sentences with the main purpose in the first sentence. It is efficiently written, includes an example, and no word is wasted. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (indicated in context), the description sufficiently covers what is returned and access requirements. It mentions key fields and that no sudo is needed. Slightly more detail on the output format (though schema exists) would push it to 5.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: 'service_name: Name des Services (e.g., 'nginx', 'postgresql', 'sshd')'. It gives examples and clarifies the parameter's role, which compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states 'Returns the detailed status of a systemd service' (verb and resource). It lists specific output fields (active/inactive, enabled/disabled, last log output) and distinguishes from siblings like service_manage and service_logs by focusing on status details.

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 mentions 'No sudo required', which is a useful usage hint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like service_logs or service_manage. The purpose is clear, but direct comparison is missing, making it adequate but not strong.

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