cluster_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description usefully adds the summary's contents and the 'compact' scope. It does not mention return format, latency, or failure behavior, so it clears the lower annotated bar but adds only moderate context.

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 compact lines with the summary purpose front-loaded ahead of the args block. Every clause earns its place, and the '[READ]' tag is a useful leading signal.

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?

For a one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, and parameter defaulting. Only the absence of guidance on when to prefer this over sibling status tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden and does so well: it explains that 'target' is a Ceph target name sourced from config and that omitting it uses the default. This meaningfully exceeds the bare 'Target' schema title.

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+resource: a compact 'ceph -s' summary with an explicit content list (mons, OSDs up/in, PGs, usage, objects). This implicitly distinguishes it from detail-oriented siblings like mon_status, osd_tree, or cluster_health, but it never names an alternative to route between them.

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 '[READ]' tag signals a non-mutating status check, and the args note explains the default target. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with cluster_health, pg_summary, or the other status tools, leaving selection to inference.

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