get_boot_blame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only') and the failure mode ('fatal only if systemd-analyze is missing or fails'). That is solid, but it stops short of noting output ordering guarantees, whether the ranking is truncated, or unit-count limits that would matter when consuming the result.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: what it returns, its safety/failure profile, then the routing rule. The purpose is front-loaded and the alternatives are grouped in a single trailing clause.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. For a zero-param read tool, the description supplies purpose, safety, failure behavior, and sibling routing — everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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 is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter syntax.

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 ('Returns systemd units ranked by their own start duration') plus the underlying data source (systemd-analyze blame). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('flat ranking of the slowest units by self-time') and names the two alternatives with their respective conditions (get_boot_critical_chain for the gating dependency path, get_boot_time for phase totals). Nothing is left to inference.

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