pve_node_service_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It clearly declares read-only behavior ('READ-ONLY', 'No state change'), describes the return format (dict with name, state, description), and confirms no side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'READ-ONLY' label and purpose. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, what it returns, and how it relates to siblings. No redundancy.

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 simple nature of the tool, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, inputs, output, side effects, and alternatives, leaving no significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—provides example service names but nothing about node selection that isn't already in the schema. No significant additive value.

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 'get' and resource 'one systemd service's current state on a PVE node' with concrete examples (pveproxy, sshd). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to get a single service's state) and when not to (to list services or change state), with named sibling alternatives (pve_node_services_list, pve_node_service_control).

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