list_zfs_pools

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it lists pools, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention permissions, side effects (e.g., performance impact), or the format of the output (though output schema exists). This is insufficient for full 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 concise—two sentences, no fluff. However, front-loading is adequate; each sentence serves a purpose, though one sentence explains the parameter, which is acceptable for a single param.

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 has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, for a list tool with many siblings, more context (e.g., typical use cases) would improve completeness. It is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds only 'The node name,' which is minimal and redundant with the parameter name. No additional clarification on expected format or examples.

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 the tool lists ZFS pools on a node, with a specific resource ('ZFS pools') and scope ('on a node'). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_pools' or 'get_zfs_pool'.

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 such as 'get_zfs_pool' for specific pool details or 'list_pools' for other pool types. No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.

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