scrub_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag is partly redundant. However, the description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned state (function/state/percentage), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 the read marker and purpose, followed by a compact Args block. No wasted filler; the only minor redundancy is restating read-only intent that the annotations already carry.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and both inputs adequately. Minor gaps remain around the optionality/default of target and the possible enum values of the scrub 'function' field.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden and does cover both parameters: pool_id is identified as the TrueNAS pool id and target as the TrueNAS target name from config. It adds useful context that target derives from config, though it omits that target is optional/nullable and does not explain the 'function' field formats.

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 ('Current scrub scan state ... for a pool') and even names the returned fields (function/state/percentage). It is distinguishable from the write sibling pool_scrub_start, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 '[READ]' marker and the word 'Current' imply this is for inspecting an in-progress or completed scrub rather than starting one, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. pool_scrub_start). Usage is only inferable.

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