winops_svc_status

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a concrete return format and an example call, which gives useful context beyond the annotation-only safety profile, though it does not discuss error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a minimal return format and example. Every section contributes meaning without filler.

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-only status tool with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. The return format and example make the expected behavior unambiguous.

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 fully documents service_name as 'Windows service name (not display name)', so the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage. The example 'status(service_name="wuauserv")' adds a small but useful practical usage pattern beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query the current status of a Windows service.' This clearly scopes it to checking a single service state and distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_svc_list, winops_svc_start, and winops_svc_stop.

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 makes the use case clear: querying the current status of one Windows service. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of the highest level of usage guidance.

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