service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful non-obvious trait, that only allowlisted services are accepted, but says nothing about failure behavior for blocked services, output format, or any rate/permission limits.

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 efficient sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded alongside the action. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter.

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 return values need not be explained and the description is not expected to cover them. Still, for a tool with one required, entirely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves an agent guessing about valid input values.

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 'service' parameter has no documentation in either the schema or description. The description does not clarify whether the value is a bare unit name, a full unit name (e.g. with .service), or how it maps to the allowlist, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (systemd properties for a service), and the allowlist scope distinguishes it from broader diagnostics like health or uptime. The phrase 'selected properties' is vague about which properties are returned, but the core purpose is clear.

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 usage (inspect a systemd service's status) and one guardrail: only allowlisted services can be queried. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like health, uptime, or tail_logs, nor what happens for non-allowlisted services.

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