services/manage

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 disclosing behavior. It states that it controls services and lists actions, but it does not disclose that these actions mutate system state, may require root privileges, can disrupt running workloads, or that enable/disable affects persistent configuration. The schema's privileged parameter hints at root requirements, but the description itself provides no such context.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. It contains no filler, boilerplate, or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple three-parameter schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it defines the tool's function and points to the right alternatives for status and logs. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context around privilege requirements and side effects, but the schema's privileged parameter and the self-explanatory action enum compensate enough to keep this above average.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented by the input schema. The description lists most actions but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and actually omits 'reload', which is present in the enum. Per the baseline rule for full schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Control' tied to systemd services and enumerates the exact operations (start, stop, restart, enable, disable), making it immediately clear that this is a mutation tool for service state. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like logs/journal-control by naming the alternatives for logs and status. This is a precise, resource- and verb-scoped definition.

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 explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for two adjacent use cases: detailed service status should go to the service://{name}/status resource, and logs should go to logs/journal-control. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance for the most likely confusable alternatives. The control purpose itself is self-evident from the action list.

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