User service status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Show status.' The platform-specific command names add useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what happens when the service is absent, how log_lines influences output, or the exact response structure, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, dense sentence communicates the core purpose and platform support with no filler. The most important scoping phrase ('user-scope service') is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. Read-only behavior is covered by annotations. Still, the description omits the meaning and effect of log_lines, includes no guidance on alternatives, and leaves the agent without enough information to fully understand parameter behavior for a 2-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'name' is inferable from the tool name, but 'log_lines' remains ambiguous (line count? tail length? max output size?). With zero schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for parameter meaning and does not.

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 verb ('Show status') and the specific resource ('user-scope service'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_status and job_status. The explicit platform mapping (systemd --user, launchctl, sc query) leaves no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 phrase 'user-scope service' establishes clear usage context and implicitly excludes system-level services, database status, and job status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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