service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that systemctl is used and that it's fast, but doesn't mention whether it's non-destructive, what the output looks like, or how errors are handled. This is thin for a command that executes system queries.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary detail. 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the key default behavior and the underlying command, but lacks output format details and any guidance on when to use it. It's a minimum viable description but leaves some gaps for the agent.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description's note that it defaults to a common NAS set if none given adds meaningful context for the 'units' parameter. However, it doesn't clarify the expected format or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% 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 checks systemd active/enabled state per unit and mentions systemctl, which indicates a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like service_logs, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as service_logs or run_command. The only contextual hint is that it defaults to a common NAS set if no units are given, which implies usage but not when to prefer it.

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