service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (state fields plus journal lines), which is valuable since there is no output schema. However it says nothing about read-only semantics, required privileges, whether the host must be reachable, or behavior when the unit is missing or the journal is empty.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the returned data is front-loaded. It is perhaps overly terse given the missing guidance, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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 4-parameter remote-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify host addressing, privilege requirements, and unit naming. It provides only a one-line summary of what comes back, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid call.

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?

Only half the schema has descriptions (`lines` and `since`), while `host` and `unit` are bare. The description does not clarify what `host` accepts (hostname vs. SSH target vs. localhost) or that `unit` expects a systemd unit name like `nginx.service`, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (a systemd unit) and the exact data returned (load/active/enabled state plus recent journal lines). That is enough to separate it from siblings such as docker_logs or exec. It lacks an explicit verb and never names the sibling it substitutes for, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus exec or docker_logs, no prerequisites such as SSH access or sudo, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and required parameters.

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