sysknife_resolvectl_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the repeated 'read-only' phrasing adds nothing. The one genuine addition is the systemd-resolved host prerequisite, which tells the agent the operation may be inapplicable on some targets. It stops short of describing the failure mode or the shape of what comes back.

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 front-loaded sentence with purpose first, then the concrete command, then scope constraints — no wandering. The only waste is 'Read-only' opening the sentence and 'read-only' closing it, a redundant repetition of information already carried by annotations.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status read with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient: purpose, underlying command, and host requirement are all present. An agent can select and call it confidently; only the behavior on non-systemd-resolved hosts is left unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'no params' is consistent with the empty object schema and confirms the agent need not construct an argument payload.

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 ('show DNS resolution status for all network interfaces') and maps it to the literal command '(resolvectl status)', so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like sysknife_get_network_status or sysknife_netplan_get_config, but the DNS-resolver framing is specific enough to be recognizable.

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?

'cross-distro (any systemd-resolved host)' gives an implicit applicability condition, which is real guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over sysknife_get_network_status, nor what happens on a host without systemd-resolved, and no alternatives are named — the caller must infer the boundary.

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