mh_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it discloses key behaviors: exact-name matching rather than semantic search, and a list-all fallback when 'name is empty. It also previews return content including startup parameters, port, and path, which goes beyond a generic query description.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core operation and then provide the key behavioral caveat and fallback instruction. There is no filler or redundant restatement of structured fields.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what is returned, how matching works, and what to do when the name is unknown. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by clarifying that the name must be exact and that omitting it triggers a full list, which is more specific than the schema's '关键词' phrasing. This helps the agent use the single parameter correctly without opening the schema.

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 ('查') and resource ('本机 nssm 服务台账'), and further scopes behavior to exact-name matching with a non-semantic-search caveat. This makes it clearly distinguishable from semantic-search siblings like mh_search.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to omit 'name' when the exact service name is unknown, resulting in a list-all-services fallback, and states that exact matching is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for fuzzy/semantic lookup, but the '不走语义检索' caveat implies that boundary clearly enough.

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