ansible-service-manager

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions actions like start, stop, restart, reload, implying mutations, but does not warn about destructive consequences, required permissions, or idempotency. The 'status' action is read-only, but this is not highlighted separately. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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 short and avoids verbosity. It uses an 'Args:' list format for readability and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or behavior. It lacks explanation of prerequisites (Ansible config, inventory), project setup, or how logs are correlated. With 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 description adds value for the 'action' parameter by listing allowed values ('status, start, stop, restart, reload'). However, other parameters like 'host_pattern' and 'service_name' are merely restated without additional semantics. Given 0% schema description coverage, this partially compensates but not fully.

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 manages services and checks logs. It uses a specific verb 'Manage' and resource 'services', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ansible-remote-command or ansible-playbook. However, it could be more explicit about the Ansible context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or common use cases. The description only lists arguments without contextual usage advice.

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