router_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those by explicitly stating the tool cannot alter service state, which is a useful operational boundary for the agent. It does not elaborate on return format, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key limitation is stated immediately after. 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?

For a parameterless, read-only status tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the operation, and the key limitation. It does not describe the shape of the returned status information, but for this simple scope and with annotations covering safety, the gap is minor. The agent can safely call this tool without additional 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema and description are both complete by default. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail because there are none to document. The baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('procd service status'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. The explicit statement that it cannot start, stop, or restart services further distinguishes it from service-management tools. This is clear enough to separate from its many router_* siblings.

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 clearly states when not to use the tool: it cannot start, stop, or restart services. This gives the agent a firm exclusion for mutation attempts, though it does not name an alternative tool for those actions. The context is otherwise clear for a status-checking tool.

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