service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates a read-only operation ('check'), but does not confirm whether it requires special permissions or whether it has side effects. It lacks details on output format or error handling.

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 a single concise sentence of 6 words. While efficient, it may be too terse, omitting necessary context. It earns its place but does not leverage the space for additional helpful guidance.

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 simple nature with two required parameters and no output schema, the description should specify the return value (e.g., 'active' or 'inactive', or a structured status). It lacks completeness; an agent cannot anticipate the output format or how to interpret results.

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 50% (only 'service' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The 'alias' parameter is left unexplained; its purpose is ambiguous (could be a host alias or user context).

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 action: 'Check the status of a systemd service.' The verb 'check' and resource 'systemd service' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services' (which shows status of all services) or 'service_control' (which manages services), though the distinction is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For example, 'list_services' might be more appropriate to see all services, and 'service_control' is for start/stop/restart.

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