ssh_service_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and only inspects status. It could mention SSH requirements or that it queries systemctl, but the current disclosure is adequate for safe usage.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds safety and parameter detail. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (JSON per service, counts, health rating) and the automatic name resolution. No gaps given the simplicity and no annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the services parameter lists service names, provides examples, and mentions automatic resolution to unit names. No additional info for server parameter, but overall helpful.

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 verb 'checks', the resource 'running state of system services on a remote server', and the output format (JSON per service, counts, health rating). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_process_manager which manages processes.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not start/stop/restart services, guiding the agent to use it for inspection only. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the read-only hint is strong usage guidance.

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