ssh_service_status

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

The description indicates the tool performs a read-only status check via systemctl, which implies no destructive side effects. It discloses the returned data but does not detail authentication requirements or potential error conditions. However, for a simple status tool, the transparency is adequate.

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-loading the core function and then providing guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 status-check tool, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and usage context. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the returned fields. Minor gaps (e.g., error handling) are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new semantic information about parameters beyond the schema, but it reinforces that the tool uses systemctl for service status. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: checking the status of a systemd service on a remote host, and lists the returned information (active status, PID, uptime, description). It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('systemd service on a remote host'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_exec.

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 advises to 'Use this instead of ssh_exec with systemctl', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling ssh_exec tool. This effectively differentiates the tool and gives context for selection.

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