rbd_ls

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It indicates read-only nature and output fields, but does not disclose any additional behaviors like permissions, rate limits, or response format. Basic transparency.

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-line purpose followed by two-line parameter descriptions. No fluff, front-loaded with main purpose, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, description lists output fields (size, features, snapshot count) which helps agent understand return. Lacks details on formatting or limitations, but sufficiently complete for this simple list 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear meaning for both parameters: 'Restrict to a single pool name; omit for all pools' and 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.' Compensates well for missing schema details.

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 'RBD images' and lists output fields ('size, features, snapshot count'), with a '[READ]' prefix indicating read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pool_ls' or mutation tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: optionally restrict to a pool name or omit for all pools, and target from config or default. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is adequate.

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