pve_ceph_mds_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, adversarial data handling (daemon-self-reported fields), HTTP path, and expected output shape. It also notes that the shape is not live-verified, adding transparency. Missing details like authentication or rate limits are acceptable for a read-only list tool.

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 relatively concise but includes technical caveats and output expectations. It is front-loaded with purpose and readability is good. Slightly dense but not overly verbose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, output shape, and related tools. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional explanation beyond the schema; both parameters are already described in the schema. No extra semantics are provided.

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 lists Ceph MDS metadata servers from a node's view of the MDS map, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_ceph_mds_create and pve_ceph_mds_destroy by explicitly mentioning them for creation/destruction.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to list MDS servers) and directs to alternative tools for creation/destruction. It lacks explicit statements about when not to use it or other alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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