get_failed_systemd_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only in nature by using 'Find' and explicitly references systemctl --failed, which is a non-mutating command. It also states the output shape (list of failed units and health indicator). It does not mention permissions or potential limitations, but for a simple diagnostic getter this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and efficiently structured. It leads with the action and scope, then separately provides the return contract. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a parameterless read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies what is checked, the mechanism (systemctl --failed), and the return components. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke or interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing ambiguous for the agent to resolve. The schema already covers everything; the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('degraded or failed systemd services') with a clear scope ('across the entire system'). This clearly differentiates from siblings like check_service_status, which targets a single service, and get_system_health, which is broader.

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 a system-wide health check use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as check_service_status or get_system_health, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The 'across the entire system' phrase provides some context, but the guidance is only implied.

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