pool_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation via '[READ]', which is positive, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, using a clear format with a [READ] prefix and bulleted args. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Lacks explanation of return values (no output schema), error handling, or additional behavioral details. For a get tool, describing the output structure would improve completeness. However, the sibling tools and context provide some usage guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining pool_id as 'TrueNAS pool id (see pool_list)' and target as 'TrueNAS target name from config.' This provides context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 a read operation with '[READ]' and specifies the action: 'Return detail for a single pool by id.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like pool_list (which returns all pools).

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?

Implies usage when needing details of one pool and suggests using pool_list to obtain the pool_id, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over other pool-related tools like pool_status or pool_capacity.

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