ssh_service_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it explicitly says the operation is read-only, describes the JSON response shape, counts, and health rating, and explains automatic name resolution. It doesn't cover error handling or authentication requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences: what it does and returns, its read-only safety guarantee, and essential parameter guidance. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 description covers the operation, safety profile, parameter requirements, name resolution behavior, and return value shape, which is especially important given there is no output schema. Minor gaps like error behavior and how the server is identified are not fully addressed, but the agent has enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by stating services is required, giving concrete examples, and explaining that common names are resolved to unit names automatically. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Service names to check' description.

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 clearly states the tool checks the running state of services over SSH and lists the key outputs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like ssh_process_manager or ssh_health_check.

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 makes it clear this is for inspecting service status rather than changing it, so usage context is implied. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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