cephfs_status

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

The '[READ]' prefix and description of surfacing status clearly indicate a read-only operation with no side effects. While no annotations are present, the description adequately conveys non-destructive behavior. A higher score would require explicit mention of safety or lack of mutations.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with a clear header, details, and an 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lists what information is surfaced (rank state, client/standby counts, flag), which is helpful given no output schema. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., list, dictionary) or whether pagination applies, leaving minor ambiguity for tool invocation.

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?

The only parameter 'target' has zero schema description coverage. The description adds value by explaining it is a Ceph target name from config and that omitting uses the default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 it reads per-filesystem MDS ranks with specific status fields including the 'MDS behind on trimming' flag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cluster_status or mon_status which cover different subsystems.

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?

Provides context for use by highlighting the 'notorious' flag that precedes metadata stalls, implying use when investigating metadata performance. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives among siblings.

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