pool_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it's a [READ] operation and returns health/scan/topology status, but does not disclose behavior like error handling, required permissions, or whether results are cached. Minimal transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the [READ] prefix. It uses a clear heading and lists arguments concisely. No waste, but could benefit from more structure.

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 output schema, so return values are undefined. Does not explain what constitutes 'health' or 'scan/topology status', error scenarios, or prerequisites. Incomplete for a status tool with siblings providing richer details.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: pool_id as 'TrueNAS pool id' and target as 'TrueNAS target name from config'. However, it lacks format details (e.g., integer vs string constraints). Adds basic meaning but not rich semantics.

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 this tool retrieves 'Health and scan/topology status' for a single pool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pool_get (general pool info) or pool_capacity (capacity). However, it does not specify the exact output fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus pool_get, pool_capacity, or others. The description implies it's for a single pool but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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