get_service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') and adds a helpful behavioral detail: 'Accepts service names with or without the .service suffix.' This goes beyond the schema. It also lists the return fields, providing transparency on what the output contains. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences: first sentence states purpose and output contents; second adds a usage tip about suffix. Every sentence provides unique value. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with key 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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality, parameter behavior, and return fields. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but for a read-only status check this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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% with one parameter 'name' described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'Accepts service names with or without the .service suffix,' which is not in the schema description. This helps the agent understand acceptable input formats. Since schema already covers the parameter, the description enriches it.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed status of a specific systemd service.' It lists the specific fields returned (load state, active state, PID, memory, CPU, tasks, documentation, uptime), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_logs (logs), list_services (listing), or service_control (actions). The verb 'Get' and resource 'systemd service' are specific.

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 for retrieving status of one service, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'Use this to check a single service's status; for logs use get_service_logs'). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided. The context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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