rgw_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it explains what it detects (LARGE_OMAP/unsharded bucket index) and that it degrades gracefully ('Partial-safe if the bucket call fails'). No annotation contradiction. Return format is not described but that is minor for a read-only diagnostic.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core purpose, followed by useful signal detail and an Args block. Slightly prose-heavy ('foot-gun') but every sentence contributes; nothing is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key signal it surfaces, graceful failure behavior, and the parameter. Adequate, though it could specify the return shape since no output schema exists.

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% and there is 1 parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that 'target' is a Ceph target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That is the essential semantic for the only parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it reports RGW daemons and performs a large-omap scan, flagging unsharded/oversized bucket indexes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling *status tools (mon_status, mgr_status, cephfs_status) which cover other daemons.

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?

It implies diagnostic use by calling the LARGE_OMAP signal 'the top RGW performance foot-gun' and notes it is 'Partial-safe if the bucket call fails', which gives context. However, it never states when to choose this over sibling status tools or any prerequisites/exclusions, leaving usage largely inferred.

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