unit_list_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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention that by default it only shows active/failed units (as indicated in the schema). Without any statement about side effects or limitations, the behavioral profile is under-disclosed.

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 single short sentence, which is efficient, but it essentially restates the tool name (unit_list_tool) and provides no additional context. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place by adding insight beyond the name. A slightly more informative sentence could have covered default behavior or scoping without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the full input schema and presence of an output schema, an agent can technically call the tool correctly. However, the lack of annotations means the description should compensate with behavioral and usage context, which it fails to do. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but incomplete for an agent that needs to decide when to use it or what side effects to expect.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (mode, pattern, all_units) already has detailed descriptions. The description itself adds no information about how these parameters interact or what values to supply, which is acceptable given the schema carries the load. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'List' and the resource 'systemd units', making the basic purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like failed_units_tool or timer_list_tool, which also list subsets of units. The absence of any mention of filtering modes or patterns means an agent cannot tell this apart from similar list tools without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that mode='loaded' vs 'files' selects different scopes, nor that pattern and all_units control filtering. While the schema provides parameter descriptions, the description itself offers no usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from parameter names.

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