service_control

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

The description discloses that most actions require root/sudo and may return permission errors. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as side effects on dependent services, action idempotency, or response format. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 very concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states purpose and actions; the second adds crucial permission context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main actions and a critical permission note. It does not explain success/failure output or naming conventions, but it is nearly complete for a systemd control tool.

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 both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond restating the action enum and the service name concept. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'control' and the resource 'systemd service', listing the exact actions (start, stop, restart, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools like get_service_logs and get_service_status.

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 includes a note about root/sudo privileges and permission errors, providing clear context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services or get_service_status.

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