pool_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix largely repeats structured data. The description does add the list of returned fields and the fact that all pools are listed (no filtering mentioned), which is modest extra context. No pagination, ordering, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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-loads the verb and resource, keeps to one sentence plus a short Args block. The '[READ]' tag is slightly redundant given readOnlyHint but does not hurt readability. Overall compact and structured.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It lacks explicit guidance on filtering, ordering, or error cases, and gives no hint about result volume, but is adequate for a low-complexity enumerator.

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% but there is only 1 parameter, so the baseline is 4 for zero-param-like simplicity; however the single 'target' parameter does have a description in the text (config target name, defaults to default). This adds some meaning over the bare schema, landing at 3 given the low coverage is largely mitigated by param count.

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?

Clearly states verb+resource: 'List ZFS pools' with the fields returned (id, name, status, health, capacity). Distinguishes from pool_get, pool_status, pool_capacity, and pool_health_rca by being the general enumerator, but does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the list nature and the '[READ]' marker suggest it's a safe enumeration, and the target note gives light context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance vs pool_get or pool_status, and no when-not-to-use exclusions.

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