cluster_status

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

The description explicitly marks the operation as '[READ]', indicating no side effects. With no annotations provided, this is a key behavioral disclosure. However, it does not cover potential performance impact or permissions needed, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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, using only three lines with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded with the keyword '[READ]' and the function is clearly summarized.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists the main fields it returns, which is adequate for understanding the output. It covers the essential context for a compact summary tool, though it could mention error states or scale limitations.

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 single parameter 'target' is explained with its source ('from config') and its default behavior ('omit for the default'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/optionality, which had 0% coverage.

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 it is a compact summary of ceph -s, listing specific fields (mons, OSDs, PGs, etc.). The verb 'READ' and the content make it distinct from sibling tools like cluster_health or mon_status.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's for a quick overview, but lacks direct contrast with sibling tools or conditions for use.

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