ssh_manage_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as requiring root privileges, destruction of state (e.g., enable/disable), error handling, or return value nature. This is a significant gap for a system management tool.

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 concise, using a clear list format for arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is stated first. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the basic usage but misses important context like required privileges (root), what happens on failure, and how the output is structured. Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing parameters with examples (e.g., 'nginx' for service) and enumerating allowed actions ('start', 'stop', etc.). This compensates for the bare schema.

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: 'Manage a systemd service (start, stop, restart, enable, disable).' It includes a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('systemd service'), differentiating it from siblings like ssh_check_service which checks status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention ssh_check_service for status checks or other service-related tools, leaving the agent to infer context without direction.

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