list_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and permissions. It fails to explicitly state that listing is a read-only operation, whether elevated privileges are required, or what output format to expect. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 immediately states the action and optional filter. No wasted words or redundant elaboration.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It doesn't describe output format or error conditions, but for a straightforward read-only list, these are not critical gaps. A 4 reflects the slight lack of output/error documentation.

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 100%: the filter parameter is fully described with its enum values and default. The description's 'filter by state' only restates the schema, adding no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists systemd services with an optional state filter, which distinguishes it from siblings like manage_service (manages services) and list_directory (lists files). The verb 'list' and resource 'systemd services' are specific and unambiguous.

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 conveys the tool's primary use (listing services) and the available filter by state, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the sibling tools make the differentiation inferable.

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