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 discloses the allowlist constraint, implying the tool will fail for non-allowlisted services, but it does not specify required permissions, rate limits, or the exact return behavior beyond the output schema. The read-only nature is implicit in 'status' but not explicit.

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 a single sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the constraint, and implicitly the parameter. It does not detail the allowlist mechanism or possible errors, but the output schema covers return values, so this is acceptable. Slight deduction for not fully explaining the allowlist behavior.

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 schema provides no description for the 'service' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the parameter is the name of an allowlisted service, which is a key constraint not evident from the schema alone. It does not provide format examples but compensates for the schema gap.

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 returns systemd status for a service, with a specific constraint (allowlisted). The verb 'Return' and resource 'systemd status' are unambiguous, and the 'allowlisted' scoping distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_health or list_containers.

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 implies the tool is for checking systemd service status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides context by naming the resource and constraint, but lacks explicit guidance on alternative selection.

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