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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the running status,' which implies a read but does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or what states the status can take. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name itself.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and adds one parameter note, with no wasted words. 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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation needs. It could be slightly more complete by describing possible status values or confirming no side effects, but the provided context is mostly sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It clearly defines 'name' as a service name and, crucially, tells the agent to use list_allowed_services to obtain valid values, which is exactly the information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Get the running status of a WLAN Pi service.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from service-management siblings like start_service and stop_service, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from other status-style getters such as get_profiler_status or get_blinker_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?

The description provides useful parameter guidance by telling the agent to 'use list_allowed_services to see valid names,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative tools or state any exclusions. Usage context is implied by the getter semantics rather than stated.

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