check_service_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions host_name behavior and return contents, but does not state that the operation is read-only or that it may open network connections to remote hosts, which are relevant behavioral traits.

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 structured with Args and Returns, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only essential details. It is moderately sized and each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the output schema, return values are sufficiently summarized. The tool is simple, and the description covers the key parameters and return behavior, but lacks any safety or error semantics.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides meaningful semantics: examples for service names and explanation that host_name defaults to host config. This compensates for schema gaps.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Check the status of a systemd service', a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like check_disk_health or manage_service by focusing solely on status retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the mention of systemd service status implies a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use or point to alternatives such as manage_service.

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