pve_ceph_cfg_value

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, mentions normalization of underscores to hyphens in the response, and warns that the shape is not live-verified, with an expected two-level map structure. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose and read-only flag. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral aspects (normalization, shape expectations). It covers key points for a read-only config tool, though it could explicitly state that the response is a map. Overall, sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the format for config_keys (semicolon/comma/space separated) and referencing the HTTP parameter name. It also explains the default for node. The description does not significantly augment proximo_target, but overall it enhances schema meaning.

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 it is a READ-ONLY tool for retrieving configured values for specific ceph.conf / mon-config-db keys. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_ceph_cfg_db and pve_ceph_cfg_raw by specifying the scope (individual keys) and the endpoint pattern.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_ceph_cfg_db or pve_ceph_cfg_raw. While the name implies value retrieval, there is no comparison or exclusion criteria to help the agent decide between siblings.

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