failed_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, point-in-time listing, but never states that (no permissions/elevation requirement, no note that it is non-mutating, no rate or scope limits), leaving the safety profile to inference.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope-restricting phrase ('currently in the failed state') comes early, which is exactly where an agent needs it.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description covers what is needed to select and call it correctly. It only omits operational niceties like privilege requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% — the single 'server' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'the inventory server name to check'. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a tightly scoped resource ('systemd services currently in the failed state'), with the platform qualifier ('on a Linux server'). This is inherently distinguishable from every sibling (journal_errors, running_processes, uptime) without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'currently in the failed state' — an agent infers this is for failure diagnosis on a host — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as journal_errors for the underlying cause.

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