System Status Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the state values (running/degraded) and the presence of failed/job counts, but it does not go much beyond the annotation and output schema in describing behavior.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no wasted language. It states the core purpose first and optionally lists return values in a compact form.

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, zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly routing agents to failed_units_tool or list_jobs_tool when they need detailed lists rather than aggregate status.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get overall systemd manager state, including running/degraded status and failed/job counts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from unit-level siblings like unit_status_tool and list-oriented siblings like failed_units_tool and list_jobs_tool by emphasizing overall manager state and counts rather than per-unit details or lists.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for a high-level system health check. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of siblings such as failed_units_tool or list_jobs_tool when the agent needs detailed per-unit or per-job information.

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