get_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only status lookup via 'Get', but does not disclose authentication requirements, privilege needs, or any behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the 'Legacy compatibility' context is front-loaded. The terseness is appropriate structurally, even though the content is 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?

The output schema exists, but the input schema is undocumented and the tool overlaps with ssh_get_services. For a legacy duplicate, the description should at minimum explain when this tool is appropriate and what hostname means.

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 single required hostname parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'from Linux host'. It does not clarify hostname format, target resolution, or credential expectations, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get systemd services status from a Linux host. The 'Legacy compatibility' prefix adds lifecycle context, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling ssh_get_services.

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?

Mentions 'Legacy compatibility' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name ssh_get_services as the modern alternative. An agent must infer usage from the sibling list.

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