pool_health_rca

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it explicitly marks the operation as read-only ([READ]), describes pulling the /pool listing with topology and scan, details the evaluated conditions, and explains the output format (worst-first, with measured values and actions).

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the purpose and read-only hint, followed by specific detection criteria and an Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

The description fully covers input, process, thresholds, ordering, and output contents. Even without an output schema, an agent can understand what the tool returns and how to interpret it, making the description complete for this tool's complexity.

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 only parameter, 'target', is thoroughly explained as a TrueNAS target name from config, with the behavior when omitted clearly stated. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema of string/null/default 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 opens with a specific verb ('Flag'), names the resource ('ZFS pools'), and specifies exact criteria (state, error counters, capacity). It clearly differentiates this tool from simple listing/status siblings by describing a diagnostic flagging behavior with ordering and output content.

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 makes the use case clear: run this to get a health-focused RCA of ZFS pools based on degradation, errors, and capacity thresholds. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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