Ceph Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data fields returned (health, FSID, monitors, OSDs, placement groups), which is useful beyond the annotation. No contradiction, and the added detail improves transparency without overreach.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and specific outputs. Zero waste, and the most critical information (action=status) appears early. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only query.

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 two-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned fields, which is the key missing information. It does not mention potential error cases or the node's role, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 only 50% (node is described, action is not). The description compensates by explaining action=status and its outputs, but it adds no new meaning for the node parameter beyond the schema's 'Node name'. It partially fills the gap but does not fully clarify the node's role (e.g., whether it is the node to query or just a routing parameter).

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 the tool queries the Ceph cluster and specifies the action=status, listing the exact outputs (health, FSID, monitors, OSDs, placement groups). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proxmox_ceph_osd by focusing on cluster-level status, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 makes it obvious that this tool is for overall Ceph cluster status, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large set of Ceph-related siblings, explicit routing would be helpful, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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