get_service_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status but doesn't explain what 'status' entails (e.g., running/stopped, health metrics), how it performs the check (e.g., via SSH commands), error handling, or any side effects. For a tool with SSH parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the current status of an installed service.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant information, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving SSH access to check service status), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, return format, or error conditions, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent in this infrastructure management context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 5 parameters (service_name, hostname, username, password, port) with details like defaults and usage notes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 purpose: 'Get the current status of an installed service.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an installed service'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_info' or 'check_ansible_service,' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., SSH access setup), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_service_info' or 'check_ansible_service.' This lack of context could lead to misuse or confusion in a multi-tool environment.

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