service_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call surfaces boot-time state plus journal lines, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about how many journal lines are returned, whether elevated privileges are needed to read the journal, or what happens when the unit name does not exist.

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 resource first and the returned signals front-loaded in a parenthetical. No filler, no 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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain return values, and the safety annotations cover the read-only nature. The remaining material gap is unit-name format for the only parameter, plus unspecified journal window size, which leaves the agent guessing on a simple but real detail.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'name' is undocumented in both schema and description. It is ambiguous whether the caller should pass 'nginx' or 'nginx.service', and nothing indicates whether a unit template or instance format is accepted.

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 ('Status of') and resource ('a systemd service'), and the parenthetical specifies exactly which signals are reported (is-active plus recent journal lines). This clearly separates it from siblings like service_restart, service_reload, and tail_log, though it does not call those siblings out by name.

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 diagnostic step before service_restart or service_reload, but the description never says when to prefer it over tail_log or asterisk_cli, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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