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. It clearly frames the operation as read-only ('Check', 'Shows') and discloses that output comes from 'systemctl status,' including the specific fields displayed. It does not mention permission requirements or behavior for unknown services, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of output categories. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only status tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description names the main output categories and makes the purpose clear. It does not specify output formatting or error behavior, but those are less critical for a low-complexity tool like this.

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 100%, so the baseline score applies. The schema already documents both parameters fully, including the optional '.service' suffix and the meaning of the user flag. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check the status') and a specific resource ('systemd service'), then enumerates the concrete information returned: active/inactive/failed state, enabled state, PID, memory usage, and recent log lines. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like service_logs and process_list in practice, even without naming them.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as service_logs or process_list, nor does it state any exclusions like 'use service_logs for full log history.'

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