System Status Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation via 'Get' and lists the returned fields, which is useful. But it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects on the system, nor does it mention any privilege requirements or rate limits. Adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two terse sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every part contributes: what the tool does and what data it returns.

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 status query with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the scope and names the returned fields. It could offer more context about interpreting the returned values, but the output schema likely covers those details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('overall systemd manager state'), and it enumerates what is captured: running/degraded state, failed units, and job counts. The word 'overall' clearly sets it apart from unit-scoped siblings such as unit_status_tool, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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 description implies when to use the tool: for overall manager state rather than unit-specific operations. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention related alternatives like failed_units_tool or list_jobs_tool for more detailed views. Usage context is only implicit.

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