pmg_service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, returns a dict with service state, and handles unknown service names by returning a PMG 404 error. However, it does not detail the exact structure of the returned dict, though an output schema exists to cover that.

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: two sentences plus a parenthetical list. It is front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and the core purpose, then quickly covers config requirements, return type, examples, error behavior, and sibling tool reference. No word is wasted.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, read-only nature, config prerequisite, return type, examples, error handling, and alternative tool. It is complete for effective agent use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that unknown service names return a PMG 404, which the schema does not mention. This extra semantic information aids the agent in understanding error behavior beyond parameter names and types.

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 tool's purpose: 'get the status of a PMG system service'. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'PMG system service', distinguishing it from siblings like pmg_service_control. Examples of services are provided, reinforcing clarity.

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 explicitly marks the tool as 'READ-ONLY' and mentions the required 'PROXIMO_PMG_* config'. It directly guides the agent to use pmg_service_control for start/stop/restart/reload, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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