get_systemd_list_failed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (listing), implies non-destructiveness, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or behavior when no failed units exist. The transparency is adequate but basic.

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 very short (one sentence plus an explicit usage instruction), front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more informative, for example by briefly noting that it connects via SSH. It is concise but somewhat under-specified.

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 seven parameters (two required) with no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to use parameters or handle authentication. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves significant gaps in understanding tool usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters (host, user, port, etc.), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Users must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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 that the tool 'Lists failed systemd units' and urges to 'USE THIS TOOL to check for FAILED daemons/services/units.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_systemd_list_all (lists all units) and get_systemd_list_timers (lists timers).

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 gives a clear directive on when to use the tool ('to check for FAILED daemons/services/units'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance given the sibling tools.

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