system_service_control

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

Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the dangerous nature, requirement of confirmation, and underlying OS-specific commands. However, it omits details on whether actions are synchronous, require elevated permissions, or the exact behavior on failure.

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, well-structured sentence with the '[DANGEROUS]' prefix upfront. No redundant information, every word adds value.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with three required parameters and no output schema. The description covers core function and safety but lacks information about return values, error handling, or post-action state. Given the absence of an output schema, such details would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' enum values (start, stop, restart) and the 'confirm' parameter's purpose ('requires confirmation'). However, the 'service' parameter remains undefined, and the 'confirm' parameter format (e.g., expected string) is not specified.

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 function: 'Start, stop, or restart a system service.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_service_list (listing) and system_process_kill (killing processes). The '[DANGEROUS]' prefix further clarifies the high-risk nature.

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 explicitly requires confirmation, implying safe usage conditions. It also notes cross-platform command differences (sc, systemctl, launchctl). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative service management tools or provide exclusions.

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