控制 systemd 服务

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation/destructive nature. The description adds little beyond restating actions; it does not disclose potential side effects like service downtime or privilege requirements, but does not contradict annotations.

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 that directly states the core action set with no filler. It is efficient and front-loaded, earning high marks for conciseness.

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 is minimal. It does not explain what `alias` refers to (likely an SSH server alias), that this is a remote operation, or any operational context such as permissions or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutating control 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for parameters `alias`, `service`, or `action`. The action enum is repeated in the description, but alias and service remain undefined, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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: '启动、停止、重启或重载 systemd 服务' (start, stop, restart, or reload systemd services), using a specific verb set and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_service_status by focusing on control actions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage whenever service control is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_service_status or ssh_execute. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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