pve_ceph_mgr_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It declares 'READ-ONLY', warns that data is daemon-self-reported and should be treated as reporting data not actions, and notes that the shape is not live-verified. Excellent disclosure.

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?

Description is efficient with no redundant sentences. Every part adds value: read-only label, adversarial warning, HTTP path, expected shape, sibling references.

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 output schema exists to document return values, the description covers purpose, safety, data trust, endpoint, and siblings. Fully 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described. Description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., URL path indicates node usage), so baseline 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 it is a read-only operation listing Ceph managers from the mgrmap view, specifies the HTTP GET endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling tools pve_ceph_mgr_create/pve_ceph_mgr_destroy.

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?

Provides clear context for use (listing managers) and warns about adversarial data trust. Mentions create/destroy siblings for modification. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but adequately sets expectations.

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