proxmox_ceph_fs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions without mentioning side effects, idempotency, or destructive potential (e.g., 'create' is a write operation). Insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (one line) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place with no redundancy, but lacks structure (e.g., sections for actions).

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 two actions and six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values for 'list', required parameters for 'create', or parameter relationships (e.g., pool vs data_pool).

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 83%, meaning most parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool manages Ceph filesystems and lists two actions (list, create), which clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_ceph_pool. However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat vague.

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 alternatives (e.g., proxmox_ceph, proxmox_ceph_pool) or any prerequisites. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases.

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