list_ceph_monitors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. It only implies a read operation through the word 'List', but adds no explicit transparency.

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 very short (two lines) and front-loads the purpose, but it omits important context. It is concise but fails to fully earn its place by not including usage or behavioral details.

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?

For a simple listing tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameter's meaning, usage context, or how this tool differs from sibling list tools. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but falls short.

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 for the single parameter 'node'. The description adds 'The node name,' which provides basic meaning but lacks clarity on what constitutes a node (e.g., cluster node vs Ceph monitor node). It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'List Ceph monitors,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ceph_osds and list_ceph_pools 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Ceph list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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