mon_status

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

The description marks itself as [READ] and explains what data it reveals (mons in/out of quorum, epoch). Without annotations, it carries the transparency burden and does so adequately. It does not mention permissions or additional side effects, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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: a lead '[READ]' prefix, a brief purpose line, a use-case sentence, and a single parameter line. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description fully covers its purpose, when to use it, and the parameter. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description explains the sole parameter 'target' as 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaning beyond the minimal schema (which lacks a description). With only one optional parameter, this is clear and sufficient.

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 the tool monitors quorum status (mons in/out of quorum and monmap epoch). It uses a specific verb 'Monitor' and resource 'quorum', and distinguishes from siblings like mgr_status, osd_tree, etc., by focusing on monitor-specific health flags (MON_DOWN, clock-skew).

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'when health flags MON_DOWN or a clock-skew warn'. It implies usage context but does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, missing a full when-not-to-use guide. However, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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