Boot Analysis

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions systemd-analyze, implying a read-only system command, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, return behavior, or side effects. The agent cannot infer whether this tool is safe or what it outputs.

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 that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. No unnecessary words are present.

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 an output schema existing, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It also lacks any parameter guidance. For a tool that likely just runs a command, the description is too sparse to enable correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 0% coverage and the description gives no information about the 'params' parameter. The schema itself is generic (anyOf object/null) and provides no meaning. The description completely fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics entirely unclear.

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 states a specific purpose: analyzing boot time using systemd-analyze. It clearly identifies the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though none appear directly related, so a 4 is appropriate.

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. The description simply states what it does without any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a diagnostic tool, this is a significant gap.

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