service_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'read-only', which hints at safety but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether any parameters are needed (trivially none), what format the status appears in, or any side effects (even though it's read-only, it may still involve network queries). The description is too minimal to inform the agent of expected behavior.

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 extremely short—a single phrase—which is concise, but it is not a well-formed sentence and lacks structural elements like a verb or explicit object. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, trading clarity for brevity.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what 'service status' means, what information is returned, or how it differs from the many sibling status tools. An agent cannot know what to expect from calling this tool, making it incomplete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete with 100% coverage by definition. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 'MyVigor service status (read-only)' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not specify what 'service' refers to (e.g., a specific daemon, a feature set) or what 'status' includes. With many sibling tools like show_status, sys_status, and show_health, the description provides no differentiation, leaving an agent unable to tell which tool to pick.

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 tool versus the many similar status/read-only siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over show_status, sys_status, or sys_health.

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