daemons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads actual loaded state (not configured) and distinguishes behavior across macOS and Linux. It also mentions the optional case-insensitive substring filter. It falls short of describing return format or permissions, but for a read-only listing tool, the provided behavioral detail is solid and exceeds a basic description.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose, platform behavior, and optional filter parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description provides essential context: platform-specific behavior, current-state scope, and filtering. It does not need to explain return values in detail due to the low complexity. The only minor gap is not specifying what fields are shown per service, but that is not required for tool selection and invocation.

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 covers the 'filter' parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the filter is case-insensitive and applies to the service label, which is not stated in the schema. This extra semantic detail justifies a score above baseline.

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 this tool lists persistent services currently loaded, specifying platform-specific mechanisms (launchctl on macOS, systemd user services on Linux). It uses a specific subject ('Persistent services actually loaded right now') and differentiates itself from siblings like 'whats_running' by focusing on daemons and services rather than generic processes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'whats_running' or 'listening_ports' or explain when one should choose this over them. The only contextual hint is 'actually loaded right now', implying it shows active services, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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