service_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call surfaces version, CLIs, trigger counts and today's runs, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the check starts a stopped service, how expensive it is, or how failures surface.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the target ('the Self-Starter background service') and then lists the returned facts. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the job of saying what comes back, and it enumerates four categories of returned data. The only gap is that the shape of those values (e.g. what a 'trigger count' or 'today's agent runs' entry looks like) is unspecified.

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 tool takes no parameters at all, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema and description are consistent in describing a parameterless inspection call.

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 pairs a concrete verb ('Check') with a specific resource ('Self-Starter background service') and enumerates what is inspected: version, available agent CLIs, trigger counts, and today's agent runs. That clearly separates it from the trigger_* siblings, which all operate on individual triggers rather than overall service state.

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?

Use is only implied by the content listed — an agent can infer this is the diagnostic/health check to run before working with triggers. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of what to do instead if the service is down.

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