pve_ceph_pool_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly declares the tool as READ-ONLY, specifies the response shape with expected fields, and notes that statistics are only present when verbose=True. It also mentions that the shape is 'smoke-confirmed' not 'live-verified', adding transparency about data reliability. However, it includes extraneous internal review notes that obscure the transparency.

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 excessively verbose, containing internal notes like 'CORRECTED (Wave 6d review Finding 2, 2026-07-17)' and detailed schema comparisons. The main purpose is stated upfront, but the rest is unstructured and includes information irrelevant for an AI agent. The description could be condensed to two or three sentences without losing essential information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, output shape, and parameter conditions (verbose for statistics). It mentions the HTTP endpoint and provides a detailed list of expected response fields. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, authentication, or error handling. Given the presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, it is largely complete for a read-only tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value, only briefly mentioning the verbose parameter for statistics and noting that the name parameter is 'unconstrained' and 'adversarial'. This adds some security context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'READ-ONLY: one pool's current settings (+ usage/IO statistics when verbose=True)', which clearly states the tool's purpose as a read-only operation to retrieve current settings and optionally statistics for a single Ceph pool. It also mentions the HTTP GET endpoint, providing a clear verb-resource mapping. However, the description is cluttered with internal engineering notes that detract from the core purpose.

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 differentiates from the sibling tool pve_ceph_pool_list by contrasting the crush_rule field type (string vs numeric ID) and mentions that this tool uses the same 'name' argument. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide conditions for when not to use it. The differentiation is implicit and requires inference.

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