mon_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description reinforces that with a [READ] tag and adds useful trigger context, but discloses nothing further about behavior (e.g., what happens on an unreachable mon, or whether the output changes with quorum state). Adequate but adds limited value beyond the annotation.

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?

Tightly structured: purpose first, then a clear routing condition, then the single argument. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately sketches the return content (quorum membership and monmap epoch) and covers the sole parameter. Nothing critical is missing, though output format details are absent.

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 burden and does add real meaning: 'target' is a Ceph target name from config, and omitting it uses the default. That resolves the only ambiguity an agent would have, though it gives no format examples.

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?

Names a specific resource (monitor quorum) and states exactly what is returned: mons in/out of quorum plus the monmap epoch. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mgr_status, osd_tree, and cluster_health, which cover different subsystems.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — health flags MON_DOWN or a clock-skew warn — which is exactly the situation where an agent would reach for this tool. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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