Управление сервисом (systemctl)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a critical behavioral trait: status executes immediately, while other actions require confirm: true and only on explicit user request. This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not cover output format or failure modes.

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 concise—one sentence with the command pattern and a follow-up rule about confirmation. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the action list.

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?

For a simple systemctl wrapper, the description adequately conveys the core operation and a critical safety rule. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, or remote execution behavior beyond what the schema implies, and the lack of an output schema leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 all parameter descriptions exist. The description reinforces the action and unit parameters through the systemctl pattern and clarifies the confirm requirement, but it does not add new semantic meaning to host, key, port, or user beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies the exact command pattern 'systemctl <action> <unit>' and enumerates all supported actions (status, start, stop, restart, enable, disable). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ssh_exec or server_power, as it is dedicated to systemctl service management.

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 the tool (when a systemctl action on a service unit is needed) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like ssh_exec or provide exclusion scenarios. The confirmation rule gives usage guidance for state-changing actions, but it lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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