create_ceph_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Create a new Ceph pool' and lists parameters without describing side effects, destructive nature, authentication needs, or return behavior. Critical gaps remain.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and a well-structured parameter list. It is efficient but could benefit from separating the core description from parameter details more distinctly.

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 absence of annotations, 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description should cover more. It omits return values, error conditions, and constraints (e.g., node validity). The parameter list helps but is insufficient for full 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing parameters with default values and brief explanations (e.g., 'size: Number of replicas (default 3)', 'application: Pool application (rbd, cephfs, rgw)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 'Create a new Ceph pool', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ceph_osd or list_ceph_pools by specifying the Ceph pool context.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and there is no exclusion criteria. It simply performs the action without context.

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