get_service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so: it declares read-only semantics and explicitly lists the mutating actions that are unavailable. It also indicates the return is the raw `systemctl status` output. Minor gap: no mention of behavior for a nonexistent or inactive unit.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the read-only constraint in one sentence, then cleanly separates the argument spec. No filler anywhere.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety, and argument format adequately. Slightly incomplete on edge-case behavior (unit not found) but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 0%, and the description compensates by giving the parameter's meaning, two concrete examples ('nginx', 'ssh.service'), and an explicit allowed-character set. That is meaningful added value, though it doesn't state whether the '.service' suffix is optional or how invalid names behave.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the systemctl status output for one systemd service') and immediately scopes it as read-only, distinguishing it from mutation-oriented siblings and from other info tools like get_cpu_info/get_system_info.

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 frames the read-only context and enumerates the operations it cannot perform (start/stop/restart/enable/disable), which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for those operations, so not a full 5.

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