control_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does mention the requirement for sufficient privileges, which is valuable context. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., service downtime), return values, synchronous execution, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 that front-loads the primary action and the resource. It is concise and free of filler, earning full marks for structure.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is reasonably detailed, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain return values or outcome reporting. Additionally, the 'status' action present in the enum is omitted from the description, which is a completeness gap. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves room for clarification.

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 coverage is 100%—both parameters have clear descriptions ('Exact service name', 'Action to perform'). The description adds only minimal context (Windows-specific) beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Start, stop, or restart') and a specific resource ('a Windows service'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_services and get_service by focusing on control operations. Though it omits the 'status' action from the enum, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the privilege requirement but does not frame it as a selection criterion. Sibling tools like get_service or list_services could be referenced for related tasks, but no such direction is given.

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