get_service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Status of...' clearly implies a read-only probe, so the safety profile is inferable. It adds no detail on whether this performs live network checks, aggregation behavior, or partial-failure handling, which are the behaviors an agent would actually want disclosed.

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 the resource front-loaded. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter surface is trivial. What is missing is the routing context against the numerous sibling status tools, leaving the agent to guess which status endpoint it actually wants.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the resource (ports for Local AI, MLX, Llama.cpp, Vibe, Nexus) and implies a status read, which is reasonably specific. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_server_status or get_vibe_proxy_status, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling status/query tools (get_server_status, get_vibe_proxy_status, list_configured_tools). An agent is left to infer that 'status across the whole stack' is the distinguishing condition.

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