pool_capacity

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description does add output-content context (the per-pool fields returned) despite there being no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or behavior when target is omitted.

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 '[READ]' tag, then a compact one-line summary and a short args block. No filler, though the args formatting is slightly awkward for a tool whose single parameter is optional.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what the parameter means. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which matters given pool_list/pool_get/pool_status in the same family.

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%, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, explaining that 'target' is the TrueNAS target name from config rather than, say, a pool name. It stops short of explaining the null default (what happens when target is omitted).

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a read-only capacity summary per pool — and enumerates the returned dimensions (size/allocated/free, used percent). It is distinguishable from dataset-level siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with pool_list or pool_status.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With pool_list, pool_get and pool_status as siblings, an agent gets no hint about which to call for a capacity question versus a health or inventory question. The '[READ]' tag implies safety but not selection criteria.

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