capacity_rca

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The '[READ]' prefix signals read-only, and the description explains what it folds in and what it returns (ranked findings with next steps). It doesn't disclose potential cost/latency or output format details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Well-structured: the description opens with the core purpose, provides when-to-use guidance, lists what it folds in, and wraps up with an Args section. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose with the list of what it folds in, but that list directly informs tool selection, so it's justified.

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 an RCA tool with a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It states the tool's purpose, when to call it, what analyses it aggregates, the output format (ranked findings with suggested actions), and the single parameter. This fully equips an agent to decide to use it and invoke it correctly.

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 has 1 param (target) with 0% coverage in the description. However, the description's Args section does explain 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. With only one simple optional parameter and schema coverage at 0%, the description adequately compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose and default behavior.

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?

Clear verb+resource: it performs capacity & usage root-cause analysis, returning ranked findings with cause + suggested action. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. However, it doesn't strongly distinguish itself from siblings like cluster_status or usage_by_bucket, though the '[READ]' prefix and 'RCA' framing add specificity.

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?

Excellent guidance: it explicitly says 'Call this first on any storage is filling up / writes are failing question' and lists exactly what it folds in (capacity vs used, offline drives/nodes, per-drive hotspots, imbalance) into ranked findings. This is explicit when-to-use guidance that helps the agent select this tool appropriately.

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