service_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('view status'), but omits details such as whether elevated permissions are needed, what happens if the service doesn't exist, or the output format. The description is too brief to fully inform the agent of the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and example services. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lists example services and implies the action. However, it lacks an explanation of the output (e.g., whether it returns a simple running/stopped status or detailed info), and no context is given for how the status is determined. With many sibling tools, more completeness would help disambiguation.

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 100%, and the parameter description lists example values. The tool description repeats these examples but adds no new semantic information (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed values beyond examples). As coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool checks the status of specified services like nginx, php-fpm, mysql, redis, using a specific verb '查看' (view). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that read configs (nginx_config_read) or analyze system resources (disk_analysis, memory_analysis). However, it does not clarify what aspects of status are returned (e.g., running state, version), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that system_info might also show service status, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., when needing detailed logs). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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