get_systemd_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool uses SSH (implied by parameters like host, user, password, key_path) or that it may require elevated privileges. The remote execution aspect and potential for large output are not disclosed, which is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too terse given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, remote execution). It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. Every word earns its place, but the description could be expanded to cover key aspects without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (status, logs, error messages are mentioned but not structured). The 8 SSHs-related parameters are not contextualized—an agent might not realize this tool connects to a remote host. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves important gaps.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (daemon, host, user, port, password, key_path, timeout, accept_new_hostkey). The term 'SPECIFIC' hints at the 'daemon' parameter but provides no semantics for connection details or other parameters. This severely hinders correct invocation.

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 'Gets the detailed status, logs, and error messages for a SPECIFIC systemd daemon/service/unit.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving comprehensive information for a single systemd unit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_systemd_list_all and get_service_logs_from_journalctl by focusing on specificity.

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 implies usage when a specific systemd unit is known ('SPECIFIC') but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it provide guidance on alternatives. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling names.

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