pool_df

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

No annotations provided. Description includes '[READ]' indicating non-destructive read operation, adding basic behavioral context. No details on auth, rate limits, or side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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?

Two sentences: first front-loads purpose and output, second explains the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 param, read-only), the description fully covers purpose and parameter. Lists return metrics (used/avail bytes, percent, objects, usable capacity) even though no output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains the only parameter: 'target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaning about what the parameter is and its default behavior, compensating for missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with '[READ] Per-pool usage: used/avail bytes, percent, objects, usable capacity.' Clearly states it's per-pool usage and lists specific metrics, distinguishing it from siblings like osd_df (OSD-level) and pool_ls (listing).

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. Only mentions 'omit for the default' for target parameter, implying usage context but not comparing to other similar tools like osd_df or pool_ls.

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