pool_health_rca

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral context: it pulls /pool with topology + scan, orders output worst-first, and states each finding cites measured status/counts/percent plus a concrete action. It stops short of noting auth requirements, pagination, or behavior across multiple targets.

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 with a '[READ] Flag ...' headline followed by a tight scope paragraph; the trailing Args block is slightly redundant boilerplate but still useful for the undocumented parameter. Overall every sentence carries 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is fetched, what triggers a finding, the ordering, the evidence included per finding, and the default value behavior of the sole parameter.

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% (the lone 'target' param has no schema description), so the description carries the burden and does so fully: it names the parameter, explains it is a TrueNAS target name from config, and states that omitting it uses the default.

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 — 'Flag ZFS pools by state, error counters, and capacity' — and enumerates the exact conditions (DEGRADED/FAULTED/OFFLINE, non-zero error counters, 80%/90% thresholds). It implicitly distinguishes itself from raw-listing siblings like pool_list/pool_status by describing analysis-and-flagging rather than dumping, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Clear context is given: this is the tool to call when you want problematic pools surfaced and triaged, with the triggering conditions spelled out. However there is no explicit 'use pool_list instead when you want the raw listing' routing statement, so the agent must infer the boundary with siblings.

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