pool_ls

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description does add value by naming the exact fields that come back and clarifying that omitting target falls back to the config default, but it says nothing about scope limits, clustering, or volume of results.

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 returned-field list is front-loaded and the argument note is short; every line earns its place. Slightly terse overall, but no padding to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains the only argument, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool. Missing only cross-references to sibling pool tools and any note on output size or filtering.

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% for the single target parameter, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, explaining that target is a Ceph target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That fully compensates for the undocumented schema field.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list all pools) and enumerates the attributes returned (size/min_size, pg_num, autoscale mode, application, quota), which is more specific than a bare 'list pools'. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearby pool_df sibling, which also reports on pools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 '[READ]' tag implies a safe inspection operation, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over pool_df, pool_create, or the set_pool_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implicit.

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