unit_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is redundant. However the description adds real behavioral context beyond structured data: per-value redaction, 4096-byte/65536-byte caps, the [TRUNCATED] marker, and the truncated flag — all of which affect how an agent must interpret the response.

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?

Front-loads the return payload, then the read-only note, then truncation semantics — logical ordering with no filler. The standalone 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the one throwaway line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanations are unnecessary, and the description usefully covers truncation semantics that the output schema alone would not convey. The remaining gap is the undocumented required 'scope' parameter.

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 is the only source. It explains 'lines' (default 20, max 1000) and implies 'unit' (single unit), but the required 'scope' parameter (system vs user, presumably) is never explained anywhere, leaving a required argument opaque.

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?

Names a specific resource ('one unit') and enumerates exactly what status fields it returns — load, active/sub state, result, main PID, plus tailed journal entries. An agent can distinguish it from list_units, failed_units, and journal without opening a schema.

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 single-unit framing implies 'use this for one named unit', but no sibling is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated (e.g. use list_units to enumerate, journal for log-only retrieval). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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