查询 systemd 服务

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already convey the safe, read-only nature. The description merely restates this with '读取', without disclosing additional traits like output format, remote requirements, or potential errors.

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 short sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action. However, it is too terse to be considered a model of clarity; it omits essential parameter and usage details. Still, it is concise and well-structured for what little it conveys.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity with two required parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks crucial context: parameter semantics, usage scenarios, and any relation to the SSH/remote environment. The annotations and output schema partially compensate, but the description alone is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 fails to explain the 'alias' and 'service' parameters. With no parameter documentation in either schema or description, the agent has no way to understand what values to provide for these required fields.

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 verb ('读取' - read) and resource ('systemd 服务状态' - systemd service status), clearly indicating a query operation. It partially distinguishes from siblings like ssh_service_control (which implies control) and ssh_system_status (broader system status), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate or mention the alias/service scope.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrasts with sibling tools like ssh_system_status or ssh_check. Only a bare statement of what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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