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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool dumps the full property set, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output size, potential verbosity, or whether it requires privileges. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it.

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?

The tool has a simple input schema and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, given the large sibling set, the description could be more complete by clarifying how this differs from unit_status_tool or unit_list_tool. The core purpose is clear, but the context is slightly incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (unit_name). The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('full property set for a unit'), and lists example property categories (dependencies, exec settings, cgroup). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like unit_status_tool or unit_list_tool.

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 this is for inspecting a unit's full property set, which suggests a diagnostic use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like unit_status_tool or journal_query_tool. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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