Ceph Filesystems

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation, which is consistent with the 'create' action. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to existing resources. For a create operation, this is a significant gap. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes almost nothing beyond what the action enum already implies.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the actions, which is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not verbose, but the minimalism leaves out critical context, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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?

This is a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and an action enum that switches between a read operation and a mutating create. The description provides no explanation of which parameters are required for each action, what 'node' refers to, or how to properly configure a create (e.g., needing a metadata pool and data pool). An agent cannot correctly invoke the create action without additional knowledge. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 high (83%), so the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantics or relationships (e.g., that pool is required for create, or how data_pool and metadata_pool differ). Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description neither helps nor hurts.

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 the tool manages Ceph filesystems and explicitly lists the supported actions (list, create). This clearly identifies the resource and verb. It distinguishes from sibling Ceph tools like proxmox_ceph_pool or proxmox_ceph_mds by naming 'filesystems' specifically, though the verb 'manage' is somewhat generic. Overall it is clear and specific enough.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_ceph_pool or proxmox_ceph_osd. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no information about when 'list' or 'create' is appropriate or what distinguishes this from other Ceph tools.

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