system_status_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying safety and side effects. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the return field list gives concrete behavioral context about what the tool surfaces. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify system state', but the read-only semantics are evident from the wording.

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 a compact two-part statement: the purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed in a clean second line. There is no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys what the tool returns and the scope of the query. It could have mentioned that detailed failed units and jobs live in sibling tools, but the overall system-state framing already implies that distinction.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and no clarification is needed.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get overall systemd manager state'. It also lists the key output dimensions (running/degraded, failed and job counts), which clearly distinguishes it from the unit-specific sibling tools.

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?

The phrase 'overall systemd manager state' provides clear context that this tool is for system-wide status rather than per-unit operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use them, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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