Unit Show 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 scope by saying it returns the full property set, including dependencies, exec settings, and cgroup details. It does not cover pagination, output format beyond the property categories, or any operational constraints.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence with the operation and scope front-loaded. Every phrase contributes useful information about the returned property categories.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the returned data scope and aligns with the read-only annotation. The remaining gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation from unit_status_tool.

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 has 100% description coverage and documents the single unit_name parameter clearly. The description does not add syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource: dump the full property set for a unit. The examples of included properties (dependencies, exec settings, cgroup) sharpen what kind of data is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling unit_status_tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus unit_status_tool or unit_list_tool. The read-only inspection use case is implied by 'Dump the full property set,' but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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