ssh_service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly lists mutating actions (start, stop, restart), which reveals the tool can change system state, but it does not mention operational consequences like service downtime or reversibility.

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?

A single, dense sentence conveys the tool's purpose and scope with no filler. It front-loads the main actions and target objects, which is ideal for an agent quickly classifying the tool.

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?

The description is clear for basic routing, but absent any annotations or output schema it does not explain return values, permission requirements, or consequences of stop/restart actions. The mutating operations are named, yet the agent has to infer the operational context.

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 parameter coverage is 100% (serverId, serviceName, action, limit), and the description does not add parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameters and the description does not need to repeat them.

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 names a specific action set – check status, view logs, start, stop, restart – and precise targets (systemd service or Docker container on remote server). It clearly communicates what the tool does and differentiates it from generic commands like ssh_execute_command.

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 use case is clear: any agent needing to inspect or control a systemd service or Docker container. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the described scope is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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