service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature of the operation, which is the key behavioral fact for a status check, but says nothing about what status data is returned, how failures for unknown services behave, or remote-execution implications.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the read-only qualifier trailing it. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read-only probe with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. Because there is no output schema, the description could have sketched what status fields come back or noted that a non-running service still returns successfully, but it leaves that to inference.

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%, so both 'host' and 'service' are fully documented in the schema, including the HOMELAB_HOSTS reference and local-machine default. The description adds nothing beyond the parameter level, which matches the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (systemd service status), which is enough to separate it from docker_* and file-based siblings. It stops short of naming when it should be preferred over any alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus system_info, docker_ps, or run_command for service inspection. The '(read-only)' tag implies a safe inspection use case but gives no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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