Unit Start Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a unit.' only states the basic action and does not describe resulting system state changes, requirement of privileges, failure behavior, or consequences of starting an already-active unit.

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 terse and free of filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than a deliberately structured explanation, so it is only minimally acceptable on this dimension.

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 parameter schema and presence of an output schema cover basic invocation details, but this is a state-changing systemd operation with no annotations and no usage context among twenty sibling tools. The description lacks enough context for an agent to choose this tool intentionally and understand the consequences of invoking it.

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 fully documents the single parameter unit_name as 'Systemd unit name', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema baseline 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 'Start a unit.' merely restates the tool name and title ('unit_start_tool', 'Unit Start Tool') without adding any detail about what a unit is, which system is affected, or how this operation differs from the many sibling unit lifecycle tools. It is a clear sentence, but it contributes no informative value beyond the title.

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 about when to use this tool versus unit_stop_tool, unit_restart_tool, unit_reload_tool, or daemon_reload_tool. No preconditions, side effects, or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from sibling names.

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