Failed Units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool runs systemctl --failed, implying a read-only listing, but it does not state side-effect safety, privilege needs, or behavior on empty results.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core action and underlying command are front-loaded. This is an appropriate size for a simple passthrough diagnostic tool.

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 low-complexity list tool, the description plus output schema is nearly complete. It lacks only an explicit note about optional parameters and a usage comparison, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the 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 schema exposes only a free-form 'params' object with no descriptions, and the description does not explain what, if anything, may be passed. The exact command hint suggests no parameters are needed for the default behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 Russian description 'Список failed юнитов (systemctl --failed)' clearly states the tool lists failed systemd units and names the exact command. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling diagnostic tools like service_status.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need the set of failed systemd units. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related siblings such as service_status or system_health_check.

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