pmg_service_status

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the lack of annotations: it indicates the operation is a read, mentions a configuration requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_*), specifies that unknown service names return a PMG 404, and references the pmgsh path. However, it does not describe error handling for other cases, response format, or rate limits.

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 very concise: three sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then provide necessary details about service names and error handling. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary clutter.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it does not explain the optional 'node' parameter or its default behavior, leaving a gap. It adequately covers the service parameter and basic error behavior, making it minimally complete but with a notable omission.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful guidance for the 'service' parameter by listing examples and stating that any valid name works (no enum). However, the 'node' parameter is left without any description, and the 'proximo_target' is already explained in the schema. Thus, partial improvement over the schema.

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 starts with a clear statement 'Get the status of a PMG system service (read)', which specifies the verb, resource, and nature of the operation. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it's for PMG services, and provides examples of service names, making the purpose 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 implies when to use (to get service status) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative tools like pmg_service_control for service control actions. No exclusion guidance is provided, relying on the user to infer from context.

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