list_services

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. It mentions SSH connectivity and local execution, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (though an output schema exists), potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond username. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the next two clarify parameter usage. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics adequately. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but more behavioral context would enhance completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'host' is optional and triggers local execution if not provided, and that 'username' is required conditionally. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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: 'List all systemd services with their current status.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('systemd services') with scope ('all'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_status' or 'get_service_logs', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by explaining when parameters are required ('required if host is provided'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_status' or 'get_service_logs'. No exclusions or clear context for tool selection are provided.

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