arch_systemctl

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It provides some behavioral context, such as explaining user_mode ('True for user services, False for system-wide services') and enumerating possible actions (status, start, stop, etc.), but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the disruptive nature of actions like stop/restart. This is minimal but non-trivial added 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 extremely concise: one purpose statement followed by three parameter explanations. Every line earns its place, no filler or repetition, and the front-loaded sentence sets the context immediately.

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 service management tool, the description covers all essential invocation details (actions, unit name, user vs system mode) and the output schema handles return values. However, it omits important contextual cues like potential need for root privileges or the impact of mutating actions, which would make it fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so exceptionally: it lists allowed values for action, gives a concrete example for unit_name (e.g., 'pipewire.service'), and explains the boolean semantics of user_mode. This fully bridges the gap left by 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 clearly states 'Manage systemd services on Arch / CachyOS', using a specific verb ('manage') and a distinct resource ('systemd services') that sets it apart from all sibling tools. It is immediately obvious what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 usage by indicating this manages systemd services, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It leaves the agent to infer that service management is the domain.

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