get_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context the annotations do not: the exact set of attributes returned, including dependency relationships in both directions and whether a trigger starts the service, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that spends every clause on a distinct returned attribute, with no filler or restatement of the tool name. Tight and purposeful.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields is precisely the missing piece and it is done thoroughly, including dependencies. It stops short of noting not-found/error behavior or whether dependency lookups can be slow, which would have made it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's own 'name' documentation is quite rich (sshd.service format, the "(user)" suffix, and the warning not to pass the description). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"One service in full" states a specific singular resource and enumerates the returned facets (state, process, startup type, account, dependencies), which reads clearly as a detail lookup rather than a listing. The singular framing implicitly separates it from list_services, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'One service' versus the sibling list_services suggests this is the follow-up call once a service name is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement about what happens with an unknown or ambiguous name.

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