pve_ceph_cfg_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature and format expectations, and notes that the shape is not live-verified. Could mention error behavior (e.g., node not found), but adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

Extremely concise: three short lines covering purpose, format, and alternative. No filler, front-loaded with READ-ONLY. Every sentence adds value.

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 read tool with optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells what, how, format, and refers to the sibling for parsed view. No missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema descriptions for 'node' and 'proximo_target'. It mentions the node in the path but that's implicit.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves the raw ceph.conf file content for a node, uses 'READ-ONLY' and the HTTP path. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling pve_ceph_cfg_db by directing to it for the parsed config-database view.

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 declares it is READ-ONLY, implying safe usage. It warns about the shape not being live-verified and specifies expected INI-style text. It provides an explicit alternative (pve_ceph_cfg_db) for a parsed view, guiding when to use which tool.

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