service_status

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

The description reveals that the tool can spawn background jobs and return job IDs for asynchronous tracking, which is useful behavioral information beyond what annotations might provide (none given). However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or destructive.

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 relatively concise but could be improved by stating the tool's purpose first before diving into timing details.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description should provide a clear overview of the tool's function and key parameters. It lacks basic information like what 'service' refers to and what the output contains.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the timing parameters and on_timeout values, leaving the 'user' parameter completely undocumented. This is insufficient.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves the status of a service; it focuses on execution timing and background job behavior, leaving the core purpose ambiguous.

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?

While it provides guidance on choosing on_timeout values, it does not explain when to use this tool over sibling tools like service_list or service_action.

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