mgr_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. What the description does add is the scope of the response (standbys and enabled modules), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it omits any caveats about permissions or target resolution failures.

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 tight lines: the '[READ]' scope sentence is front-loaded and the Args block carries only the one parameter. No filler, though the Args-style formatting is slightly verbose for a single optional argument.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description supplies enough: it names the reported content and explains the single argument. An agent could invoke it correctly, missing only edge cases such as invalid target handling.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default' explains both meaning and the null/default behavior. Only the format or source of valid target names is left unspecified.

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 resource (mgr) and enumerates exactly what it reports: the active mgr, its standbys, and enabled mgr modules. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling status tools like mon_status or osd_tree by resource, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling tools. The only usage hint is the parameter note 'omit for the default,' which tells the agent how to call it but not when to prefer it over mon_status or cluster_status.

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