get_service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only via systemctl status, explains how errors are surfaced (errors field with raw output), and clarifies that only a missing systemctl is fatal. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations might provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, validation, read-only nature, error behavior, and usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, error handling, and alternatives. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (name and user). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that name is required and mentioning --user, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states it 'Returns detailed status of a systemd service' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_systemd_units by noting that get_systemd_units is for listing states, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides a use case ('Use to check why a service failed') and names an alternative ('get_systemd_units to list states'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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