Lxc 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says it inspects status via pct exec, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's non-destructive, doesn't require specific permissions, or what happens if the service doesn't exist. It also doesn't mention whether it runs commands inside the container, which could have side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Inspect') and the resource ('systemd service or docker container status'). It wastes no words and is easy to parse. It could be slightly more structured by separating the two use cases, but it's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers the core purpose and the method (pct exec). However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about parameter semantics and usage. It's adequate for a simple status-check tool but leaves gaps around parameter meaning and edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'systemd service or docker container status' but doesn't explicitly map service_name to either a systemd service or docker container name. It doesn't explain what vmid refers to (LXC ID) or what format service_name should take. The description adds some context but leaves the agent to infer the meaning of both 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: inspecting systemd service or docker container status inside an LXC via pct exec. It names the specific verb 'Inspect' and the resource (systemd service/docker container status inside an LXC). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (lxc_list, lxc_get_info, lxc_control_power) suggest this is a distinct status-check operation, and the description is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to check the status of a systemd service or docker container inside an LXC. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tools like lxc_get_info might overlap in scope (getting info about an LXC), but the description doesn't address that distinction. It's adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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