get_service_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Does not modify system state,' which is the key behavioral trait for a read-only introspection tool. It does not mention potential permission requirements or failure modes, but for a status check, this is adequate and non-contradictory.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core function and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and behavioral constraints. No missing information would prevent an agent from calling it correctly. Return values are already defined by the output schema.

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 0% for the single 'service' parameter. The description says 'systemd status of a service,' which implies the parameter is a service identifier, but it does not specify it as a name, give examples, or note constraints (e.g., valid unit names). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, though the parameter is straightforward.

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 returns systemd status with specific fields: active state, sub-state, enabled, and activation timestamp. This is a specific verb and resource, distinct from siblings like get_service_logs (logs) and restart_service (modification). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when investigating whether a specific service is running, failed, or misconfigured.' It also notes 'Does not modify system state,' which differentiates it from restart_service. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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