bootout_service

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'unload or remove' but does not explain consequences: whether the service is stopped immediately, whether removal is persistent across reboots, whether privileges are needed, or whether related resources are affected. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no safety 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 extremely concise with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the parameter definition is structurally clean. Every word is purposeful, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With only one simple parameter and an output schema present, the bar is lower, but the description still omits critical decision-making information. It lacks usage conditions, side effects, and any indication of how this tool relates to sibling service-management tools. An agent cannot confidently choose this tool over disable_service or bootstrap_service based solely on this description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds a small amount of meaning: target is a 'service or domain target accepted by launchctl bootout.' This clarifies that the string is not arbitrary, but it remains vague about exact syntax or examples. It provides some value beyond the bare schema, but not enough to fully specify valid inputs.

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 a specific action ('Unload or remove a service/domain') and the mechanism (`launchctl bootout`). It identifies the resource (service/domain) and verb, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like disable_service or kickstart_service, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disable_service, bootstrap_service, or remove_python_task. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers. The description implies only that it unloads/removes a service, leaving the agent to infer appropriate situations.

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