Unit Show Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Dump' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed property categories are informative. However, it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, nor does it mention privilege requirements or failure modes.

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 one concise sentence with a front-loaded verb and concrete examples in parentheses. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the core semantics well: what the tool operates on and what kind of data it returns. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this differs from unit_status_tool, but that is not critical given the specificity of 'full property set'.

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 already documents unit_name as 'Systemd unit name' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dump') and a specific resource ('full property set for a unit'), naming concrete categories such as dependencies, exec settings, and cgroup. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling unit_status_tool, which likely returns only status-level information.

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: when you need the complete property set of a unit rather than just status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives like unit_status_tool for lighter-weight queries.

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