rgw_status

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

The description mentions 'Partial-safe if the bucket call fails', which adds behavioral context. However, without annotations, it fails to specify if the tool is read-only, required permissions, or other side effects. The 'READ' tag is informal and not part of annotations.

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 succinct, with clear sections: a heading, operation description, safety note, and parameters. Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more formal.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context but lacks information about output format or return values. It mentions 'Flags buckets' but does not detail what the output looks like.

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 description explains the only parameter 'target' in detail: 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type and allows null.

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 the tool performs a READ operation on RGW daemons and a large-omap scan to flag oversized unsharded bucket indexes. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools by focusing specifically on RGW and a known performance issue.

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 description implies usage for checking RGW health and large omap issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.

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