cephfs_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the returned rank states, client/standby counts, and the diagnostic significance of the trimming flag. It stops short of describing permissions or output formatting, but for a read-only diagnostic that is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the core resource, then the returned fields, then the arg. The 'notorious'/'quietly precedes metadata stalls' phrasing is flavor, but it earns its place by explaining why the trimming signal matters.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields surfaced. Purpose, returned content, and the single parameter are all covered; only secondary details like scope across multiple filesystems or failure modes are absent.

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% and there is one parameter, yet the description compensates by explaining that target is a 'Ceph target name from config' and that omitting it selects the default. That fully covers the parameter's meaning and default behavior, so no gap remains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — per-filesystem MDS ranks — and enumerates exactly what it surfaces (rank state, client/standby counts, the behind-on-trimming flag). No sibling tool covers CephFS metadata; mon_status/mgr_status/osd_tree are clearly different subsystems, so the agent can select this without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that the trimming flag 'quietly precedes metadata stalls' hints at using this for early CephFS metadata-degradation detection, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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