pool_ls

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

The description labels the tool as '[READ]' indicating it is non-destructive and lists the fields returned. However, it lacks additional behavioral context such as performance implications, authorization requirements, or rate limits.

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 two short sentences that convey the purpose and parameter information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functionality and output fields. It does not address potential filtering or pagination, but these may not be critical for this operation.

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.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, especially since schema description coverage is 0%.

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 starts with '[READ]' and explicitly states 'All pools: size/min_size, pg_num, autoscale mode, application, quota.', clearly identifying it as a read-only listing tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pool_create, pool_delete, etc.

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 versus alternatives. The description mentions an optional 'target' parameter but does not elaborate on scenarios or provide comparisons to sibling tools.

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