get_service_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific behavioral scope (checking a specific service's state) and the explicit warning against starting or restarting, which is beyond the annotations. It does not detail error behavior (e.g., service not found), but given the annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient additional context.

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?

The description is three short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the primary function, the recommended usage context, and an explicit prohibition against destructive actions. No filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 provides the core purpose and expected result states (running/failed/stopped), which is helpful since there is no output schema. However, it omits critical parameter semantics for 'scope', which is required. It also does not address edge cases like non-existent services or permission requirements, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, the main gap is the missing scope explanation. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% – neither parameter has a description in the schema. The description mentions 'a specific systemd service', which loosely maps to the 'name' parameter, but 'scope' is completely unaddressed. The agent has no guidance on what 'scope' means (e.g., system vs. user session) or how to populate it. Since the description must compensate for the schema gap but only partially does, this is a significant deficiency.

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 clearly states the verb ('Check') and the resource ('a specific systemd service'), and enumerates the three possible states ('running, failed, or stopped'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing it is for status queries, not for starting or restarting services. The phrase 'Use FIRST when the user asks if a service is up/running/active' further sharpens its specific role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use FIRST when the user asks if a service is up/running/active') and provides a clear exclusion ('Do NOT start or restart the service to answer a status question'). This effectively routes the agent to this tool over the mutation siblings (start_service, stop_service, restart_service). While it does not mention list_services, the primary decision point is covered.

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