Unit Status Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'status' correctly signal a read-only inspection, and 'curated' indicates a selected subset of data rather than raw systemctl output. Yet it does not mention failure behavior, permission requirements, or whether any side effects occur, which keeps this from being more transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a colon-delimited list of the exact fields returned. There is no filler or redundant wording; every token contributes signal.

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?

With a simple single-parameter input and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of explicit differentiation from unit_show_tool leaves a selection gap, especially given the sibling list; otherwise the description is sufficient for invoking the 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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, unit_name, with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already covers 100% of parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('unit') and names the exact curated fields: active/sub/load state, PID, memory, CPU. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling unit_show_tool, which likely overlaps in purpose.

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 phrase 'Get curated status' implies the tool should be used when a compact status snapshot is needed. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like unit_show_tool, leaving the selection guidance implicit.

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