pool_capacity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It declares a read operation, implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, error states, or what happens when target is null (default).

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose with a front-loaded '[READ]' indicator, second describes the sole parameter. No redundant information.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits details about the return format or structure. For a simple read tool, it is minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by stating 'target: TrueNAS target name from config.' This clarifies the parameter's source and purpose, but it is brief and does not explain what a 'target' is or how to obtain valid values.

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?

Description specifies a read operation ('[READ]') and clearly states the resource ('capacity summary per pool') with breakdown (size/allocated/free and used percent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pool_list and pool_get, which focus on listing or general details rather than capacity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pool_list, pool_get). The description only includes an argument explanation, not usage context or exclusions.

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