sysknife_get_service_resource_limits

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the description's repeated 'read-only' adds nothing new. It does add useful context by disclosing the underlying mechanism (systemctl show) and the specific values returned, but it says nothing about failure modes when the unit doesn't exist or about permission requirements.

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?

One compact sentence with the action name, output fields, mechanism and parameter all front-loaded; nothing bloated. The trailing '— read-only' repeats the opening 'Read-only', which is minor 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?

For a simple read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: which fields are returned and the underlying command. The only real gap is the inconsistency between the claimed required 'unit' parameter and the empty schema.

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 input schema is an empty object with additionalProperties:true, so the description is the only place that documents the 'unit' parameter and marks it required ('unit*'), which is genuinely valuable. However, it conflicts with the reported zero-parameter schema, leaving an agent uncertain whether unit is a formal property or an unvalidated pass-through.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('GetServiceResourceLimits' showing a service's cgroup limits') and lists the exact fields returned (MemoryMax/CPUQuota/TasksMax), which distinguishes it from the broader sysknife_get_service_status. It does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for cgroup limit inspection as opposed to general service status. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or pointer to alternatives like get_service_status or get_memory_info.

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