ssh_service_status

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

The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. It mentions using systemctl indirectly but lacks details on potential errors (e.g., service not found) or the need for sudo. Given no annotations, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It states purpose, return content, and usage guidance without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence carries meaningful information, making it highly efficient.

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 description adequately covers the tool's function and return fields, and it provides a usage note regarding alternatives. It does not explain edge cases like missing services or privilege requirements, but for a simple status check, this is largely sufficient. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the return description.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with adequate detail, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The schema covers host, service, timeout, etc., and the tool description does not clarify or enhance these. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: checking the status of a systemd service on a remote host. It specifies the return value (active state, PID, uptime, description) and differentiates it from related tools like ssh_exec. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 instructs to use this tool instead of ssh_exec with systemctl, providing a direct alternative and a clear condition for selection. This guides the agent on when to choose this tool over others in the sibling set.

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