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. It indicates a read-only status check via systemctl commands, but does not mention output format, exit codes, permission requirements, or any operational side effects. Minimal additional behavioral context is provided beyond the tool's core purpose.

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 very brief and free of fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified for a tool that needs parameter guidance and usage context, so the brevity detracts from overall structure and completeness.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: how to select the unit, what the output represents, and how this relates to sibling tools. For a tool with one generic parameter and no annotations, this is critically incomplete and would leave an agent unsure how to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the input schema exposes only a generic 'params' object with no defined properties. The description does not mention how to specify the target unit, nor does it explain what parameters to pass. The agent receives no guidance on required input structure.

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 'Status of systemd unit (systemctl status/is-active)' clearly identifies the operation (checking status) and the resource (a systemd unit). It is specific enough to be distinguished from most siblings like nginx_status or failed_units, although it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 such as failed_units or service_logs. There is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the phrase 'systemctl status/is-active'.

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