pool_list

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

The description marks the operation as '[READ]', indicating no side effects, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or any potential impacts. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every line adds value.

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 tool has 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description lists returned fields (id, name, status, health, capacity) and explains the parameter. It is complete for its simplicity, though could note the return format (list).

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 coverage, the description explains the 'target' parameter well: 'TrueNAS target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds essential context beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 states 'List ZFS pools with id, name, status, health, capacity.' This specifies the verb (List) and resource (ZFS pools) and lists returned fields, clearly distinguishing from siblings like pool_get or pool_status.

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 explains the 'target' parameter and default behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pool_get. Contextual clarity is high from sibling tool names.

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