services_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Details for one service' implies a read-only single-item lookup and gives no hint of destructive behavior. It does not disclose permission needs or error behavior, but the output schema covers return shape, so this is minimally adequate.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first line, then provides focused parameter examples. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description and parameter examples are largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance distinguishing this tool from list, overview, and log siblings, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 only defines service as a string, while the description adds concrete examples such as httpd, exim, dovecot, named, and proftpd. This meaningfully expands on the bare schema and helps an agent choose valid values. It stops short of listing all valid services, but is strong for a single parameter.

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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Details for one service.' This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like services_list by emphasizing the singular scope. A stronger definition would explicitly name an alternative, but the core purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use services_get versus services_list, services_logs, system_services_overview, or services_watchdog. The singular scope is implied by the description, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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