mgr_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation with no side effects, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, or potential outcomes when target is invalid. Basic transparency but could be improved.

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?

Description is concise with a clear header, explanation of what is retrieved, and parameter documentation. No unnecessary words, though slightly terse. Could benefit from a line break for readability.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its single parameter. It lacks prerequisites or return format hints, but overall sufficient for a straightforward status read.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description adds value by explaining that 'target' is a Ceph target name from config and can be omitted for default. This provides context beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 is a read operation to retrieve active mgr, its standbys, and enabled modules. The verb 'READ' is explicit, and the resource 'mgr' is specified. It distinguishes from siblings like mon_status or cephfs_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?

Description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for checking mgr status but no alternatives or exclusions. The context hints at usage for default or specified target, but no comparison to other status tools.

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