Service Status

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

Annotations thoroughly declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, response structure) beyond what is in the annotations and schema.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and to the point. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no extraneous information.

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 presence of a complete output schema, thorough annotations, and simple parameters, the description is largely adequate. A brief mention of the output format (e.g., status string) would be helpful but is compensated by the output schema.

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%, with both 'name' and 'sessionId' described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning or context beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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 'Gets the status of a systemd service' clearly identifies the action (get), resource (status of a service), and differentiates from sibling tools like service_restart or service_stop. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, which is covered by annotations but could be clearer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like service_list or service_logs. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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