service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses basic behavior (checking status and resources) and default services, but lacks information on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences plus parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 the low complexity, the description covers purpose and parameters well. Output schema exists to explain return values, so no need for that here. It misses only minor details like error handling or prerequisites.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'server' is the Chinese name and 'services' is an optional list with defaults (nginx, php-fpm, mysql, redis, system resources). This adds valuable context beyond the schema.

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 checks running status and system resources of key services on a server, with explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like exec_command and read_logs.

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 the use case (checking service status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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