Ceph health analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: each health check is emitted as a finding with operator guidance, telling the agent the output is diagnostic and actionable rather than a raw status dump. It says nothing about cost, timeouts, or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource inventory and immediately followed by the use case. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that handles return values, the description only needs to convey scope and intent — both are present. The one missing piece is sibling differentiation against storage_health and cluster_health, which would complete the picture for an agent choosing among health tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter surface that needs explaining. Nothing in the description contradicts or complicates the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (analyse) and resource (Ceph) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: health checks, OSD up/in counts, PG states, monitor quorum, capacity. That is well beyond a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as storage_health and cluster_health, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — use when asking "why is Ceph degraded/warning?" — which maps a real user intent to this tool. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so the agent gets clear positive guidance but no routing rule against storage_health/cluster_health.

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