get_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. It mentions remote execution via SSH and local fallback, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., sudo access), error handling (e.g., if service doesn't exist), output format details, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors). The output schema existence means return values need not be explained, but other operational details are missing.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'service_name' is explained as the service name, 'host' for remote SSH connection with local fallback, and 'username' as required if host is provided. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 'Get' and resource 'detailed status of a specific systemd service', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_services' (which lists services) and 'get_service_logs' (which retrieves logs rather than status).

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 provides clear context for when to use optional parameters (host and username for remote execution), but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_system_info' or 'list_services'. It implies usage for checking service status locally or remotely.

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