service_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that it returns raw `systemctl status` output and exposes active/enabled status plus recent log lines.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a minimal Args list and a one-line Returns statement. There is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 read-only status query with strong annotations and a described `str` return, the definition is nearly sufficient. It does not mention required privileges or the local-host default for `host`, but those are partially covered by the schema and are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 description merely lists parameter names (`name`, `host`, `response_format`) without explaining defaults, format meanings, or remote-host behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the tool-level description fails to compensate for the lack of structured parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource as a systemd service and specifies the status aspects queried: active state, enabled state, and last log lines. The return value is also stated as `systemctl status` output, making the tool unambiguous next to siblings like `system_status` and `logs`.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool should be used when a systemd service's status is needed. However, no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, and the remote-host prerequisite appears only in the schema, not in the description.

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