pve_ceph_flag_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions 'READ-ONLY' indicating no side effects, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or the behavior when the flag does not exist. The cryptic note 'Smoke-confirm: shape not live-verified' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 brief, with two short sentences plus a comment. It front-loads the key purpose ('READ-ONLY'). However, the second sentence is somewhat cryptic and may impair understanding, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

The output schema exists, so return value descriptions are not needed. The description covers read-only nature and endpoint, but lacks context on when to use this tool versus listing all flags, or what happens if an invalid flag is provided. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 any extra meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., flag names and proximo_target). It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.

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 'READ-ONLY: current value of one Ceph cluster flag' and indicates the GET endpoint. It identifies the specific resource (Ceph cluster flag) and action (get value), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_ceph_flag_set and pve_ceph_flags_list.

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 labels the tool as 'READ-ONLY' which implies usage for reading a flag value, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_ceph_flags_list (for listing all flags). No when-not or direct alternative references are provided.

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