service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' correctly implies a non-mutating read-only operation, which is the key safety trait. However, it does not disclose that the tool operates on a remote configured host, nor any possible prerequisites like reachability or credentials, nor error behavior when the unit is absent.

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 sentence with every word contributing meaning. It is clear, concise, and places the verb and object at the front, making it immediately scannable.

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, the description and schema cover the essentials: the parameters are well-documented and an output schema exists to define return values. However, the definition provides no context about remote execution, host configuration prerequisites, or how this tool relates to siblings in the suite, leaving an agent with only the training context to fill these gaps.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, and the schema already provides meaningful descriptions ('Configured host name' and 'systemd unit name, e.g. nginx'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'status of a systemd unit', clearly stating what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like system_overview or service_control, but the static 'status' wording makes the core purpose evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that service_control should be used for modifications, nor does it clarify when system_overview might be more appropriate. An agent receives no contextual cues for tool selection beyond the name and schema.

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