get_systemd_list_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states that the tool lists units and can check statuses, but does not describe any behavioral traits (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with connection errors). The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and the key instruction is front-loaded. It earns its space.

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 7 parameters (2 required) with no descriptions, and no output schema description, the tool description fails to provide necessary context for correct invocation. The description does not explain how to use parameters or what the output looks like. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters. The tool description does not add meaning to any parameter (e.g., host, user, port, password). This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to fill these fields.

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 explicitly states 'Lists all systemd units' and clarifies it can be used to check for running, stopped, or failed services. The purpose is clear and the verb 'lists' specifies the action, though it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_systemd_list_failed.

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 provides direction on when to use ('to check for running, stopped, or FAILED daemon/service/unit'), but does not mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, such as get_systemd_list_failed for failed units only.

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