Service Status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it specifies the full systemctl status output components, parsed active_state and enabled state, and error handling behavior (reports missing unit and suggests a fallback tool). This fully discloses what the tool does and returns, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, args, returns, and error handling. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or vague phrasing; it's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with 2 parameters and a simple read-only operation, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what inputs are expected, what returns look like, and how errors are handled. The output schema existence means return value details are optional, but the description includes them anyway, making it self-contained and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with parameter descriptions already present. The description additionally clarifies the 'server' parameter's source (inventory from ubuntu_list_servers) and gives examples for 'service' (e.g., 'nginx' or 'ssh'). This adds practical guidance beyond the schema, justifying an above-baseline score.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Show detailed status of one systemd service' with specific details about the output (state, log lines, PID, memory) and boot-enabled status. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single service's status, contrasting with listing (ubuntu_list_services) or managing (ubuntu_manage_service).

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 context for when to use: when you need detailed status of a single service. It also references ubuntu_list_servers to obtain server names and suggests ubuntu_list_services in error handling for finding correct service names. It doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use', but the alternatives are clearly implied, which is sufficient guidance.

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