systemd_failed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the action is 'Show', implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose what output format to expect, whether it requires elevated privileges, or if it affects system state. Given no annotations, a score of 3 indicates it provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description could be more complete by hinting at what the output contains (e.g., service names, statuses). The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still feels brief.

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 schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add param info. Baseline is 4, and the description is clear about what the tool does with no parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('failed systemd services'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'system_info' and 'diagnose_vps' by focusing narrowly on systemd failures.

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 for checking failed systemd services but provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'journal_errors' or 'diagnostic_command'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this tool is appropriate.

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