proxmox_ceph_mon

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists actions (list, create, delete) without explaining side effects (e.g., deletion is destructive), required permissions, or whether operations are safe. The description adds no behavior beyond what the enum values imply.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and actions. There is no redundancy, and critical information is front-loaded. Every word is necessary.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool interacting with Ceph monitors. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, required Ceph cluster state, and typical use cases. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more behavioral and usage context.

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?

The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema. The action parameter's enum values are listed but not explained (e.g., what 'create' entails, that monid is needed for create/delete). The schema covers 'node' and 'monid' with brief descriptions, but the description misses the opportunity to clarify usage.

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 'Manage Ceph monitors (list, create, delete)' explicitly states the tool's purpose with a verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the allowed actions. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling Ceph tools (e.g., proxmox_ceph_osd, proxmox_ceph_pool) by specifying monitors.

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. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or relationships to other Ceph tools. For example, it doesn't indicate that this tool is for monitor management while proxmox_ceph_osd is for OSD management.

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