List systemd services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title – it doesn't mention that services are listed for a specific host, whether the result includes status, or any limitations. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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 short sentence with no fluff, earning marks for brevity. However, it is merely a restatement of the title and lacks substance, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise. It could have been expanded with essential context while staying tight.

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 requires a mandatory 'id' parameter that is completely undocumented, and there is no output schema to clarify the return value. The description does not explain the host scope, how to obtain the id, or what the response contains. Sibling tools and annotations hint at read-only behavior, but the description alone is inadequate for correct use.

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 schema has one required integer parameter 'id' with zero description coverage. The description fails to explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a host id, a service id), leaving the agent to guess. Since the schema is unhelpful)Skip and the description carries the burden, this is a critical 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that the required 'id' parameter likely refers to a host. It leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context, which is not explicit enough for correct invocation.

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