pve_ceph_crush

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

The description discloses that the output is read-only and expected to be in plaintext `crushtool -d` format. It adds a cryptic note about 'shape not live-verified', which hints at potential staleness but lacks clarity. No other behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, rate limits, side effects) are mentioned, and no annotations exist to supplement.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the read-only nature and the resource. Every part serves a clear purpose, and no unnecessary words are present.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, and expected output format. Minor omissions (e.g., error scenarios, authentication requirements) prevent a perfect score.

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?

Both parameters (node, proximo_target) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the tool returns the OSD CRUSH map in decompiled text format, mentions the HTTP endpoint, and labels it read-only. It distinguishes itself from other ceph-related tools by specifying exactly which map it retrieves.

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?

While the intended use is implied (to get the CRUSH map), there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like pve_ceph_cfg_db or pve_ceph_cfg_raw. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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