List Storage Pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds contextual detail about the output content (health, capacity, fragmentation, running scrub/resilver). This goes beyond the structured annotations by describing what the tool reveals about system state, without contradicting the read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by data details and usage pointer. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides ample context: what data is included, the usage scenario, and the fact it's a first-stop overview. No significant gaps remain.

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 single parameter (response_format) is fully described in the schema with enum and default, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but with complete schema documentation the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all ZFS storage pools'), and enumerates the exact data returned (health status, capacity, fragmentation, scrub/resilver). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datasets or list_disks.

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?

It provides clear usage context with 'The first stop for how are my pools? or how full is my NAS?', indicating when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the purpose is specific enough that usage is unambiguous.

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