get_ceph_status_node

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning safety (e.g., read-only), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The tool is likely a read operation, but this is not confirmed.

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 with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and directly addresses the tool's function. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about what 'Ceph status' entails (e.g., health, cluster state) and does not reference any prerequisites or related resources. It is minimally adequate for a simple parameter but could be more informative.

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, but the additional description 'node: The node name' adds basic meaning beyond the type string. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., hostname or ID) or provide constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 'Get Ceph status from a specific node's perspective', specifying the verb 'Get', the resource 'Ceph status', and the scope 'from a specific node's perspective'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_ceph_status_cluster', which likely provides cluster-level status.

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 'get_ceph_status_cluster' or other Ceph-related tools. The description does not include any contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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