Get service status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that this is a read operation but adds no additional behavioral context such as what 'detailed status' includes or whether a remote host uses SSH. With annotations present, the lack of extra disclosure is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 focused sentence that leads with the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is covered. The description plus schema provide enough to call the tool correctly for a single service. It loses one point because it does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools like get_service_logs or list_services, but this is a minor gap given the read-only annotation and clear core purpose.

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 100%, and both parameters are already well documented: service_name has examples and host is described as a remote SSH target. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('detailed status of a specific systemd service'), and implies a single-service scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services and get_service_logs without needing to inspect schemas.

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 use case is implied: this is the tool for checking the status of one named systemd service. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_service_logs or list_services, nor does it mention the optional remote-host behavior.

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