osd_tree

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It declares a read operation ('[READ]') and lists output fields, but fails to mention any behavioral traits like permissions, idempotency, or potential side effects. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Extremely concise: two lines plus an args section. Front-loaded with '[READ]' and main purpose. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists key output fields, providing partial completeness. However, it does not mention the tree structure or differentiate from other OSD tools like osd_df, leaving some gaps for a tool with many siblings.

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 compensates by explaining the 'target' parameter: 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaningful 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?

The description clearly states it reads all OSDs and lists specific fields (up/in state, weight, host, device class). The verb '[READ]' and resource are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from mutation tools like osd_mark_in or osd_reweight.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like osd_df or osd_perf, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only implies a read operation but provides no context for selection.

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