get_services_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (status retrieval) without side effects. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', but the context makes it obvious. The description adds detail on the scope (all services) and output fields (enabled/running).

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It lists example services and states the output characteristics (enabled/running status), providing enough context for an agent to decide when to use 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 input schema has no parameters (zero param count) and 100% schema description coverage, meaning no additional parameter details are needed. The description implicitly confirms no inputs required, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves status of all OpenMediaVault services, listing examples (SMB, NFS, SSH, etc.), and specifies what information is shown (enabled and running). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific service settings or configurations.

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 implicitly indicates use for a broad service status overview. Sibling tools like get_smb_settings or get_ssh_settings are more specific, so an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use is absent.

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