ssh_service_status

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior and resolves common names automatically. However, it does not cover authentication requirements or edge cases like unrecognized services.

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 well-structured sentences: first sentence states purpose and output, second adds read-only nature and parameter details. 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?

Despite no output schema, description clearly explains return format (JSON per service, counts, health rating). Parameters are fully described, and required parameters are noted. Sufficient for an agent.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by stating services parameter is required, providing examples (nginx, mysql, docker), and noting automatic resolution of common names to unit names.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action (checks running state), resource (named system services on remote server), and mechanism (over SSH). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_health_check or ssh_process_manager by focusing on system service 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?

Description explicitly states it is read-only, guiding when to use it (inspection) vs. management tools. It requires the services array and gives examples, but does not explicitly list alternative tools for other tasks.

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