list_ceph_pools

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is silent on these critical aspects.

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, consisting of one short sentence and a parameter listing. While it avoids verbosity, it could be more structured to improve readability and include essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, list operation with an output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits the output structure, prerequisites, and relationship to other Ceph tools, leaving the agent without sufficient context for proper invocation.

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 provides minimal semantic information for the 'node' parameter, stating it is 'the node name.' Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds some value beyond the raw schema but is insufficient to fully clarify usage or constraints.

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 this tool lists Ceph pools, matching the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_ceph_fs or list_ceph_osds that also list Ceph components. The inclusion of the 'node' parameter suggests scoping, but this is not explicitly stated.

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. For example, there is no mention of when to use list_ceph_pools instead of get_ceph_config or list_ceph_osds. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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