pg_dump_stuck

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

The description marks the tool as '[READ]' indicating a read-only operation, which is important for behavioral transparency since no annotations are provided. It discloses that the tool returns stuck PGs and 'surfaces the OSD ids', giving insight into the output. No details on return format or side effects, but for a simple diagnostic 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's purpose in a single line followed by usage guidance and parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is logically organized.

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), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, when to use, parameter meaning, and read-only indication. It does not elaborate on the output format, but the title and description imply a list of PGs with OSD IDs, which is adequate for this diagnostic tool.

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 only parameter 'target' is described as 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This helps the agent understand what value to provide. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose.

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 lists stuck PGs with implicated OSDs, using the verb 'dump' and specifying the resource 'Stuck PGs' with qualifiers (inactive/unclean/stale/undersized/degraded). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pg_summary' or 'osd_tree' by focusing on stuck PGs and implicated OSDs.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when a PG is not recovering — it surfaces the OSD ids to investigate.', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage 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.