pve_ceph_rules

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

Discloses read-only nature and includes a 'Smoke-confirm' note about the output shape not being live-verified, which provides important trust calibration. This goes beyond what schema alone states, adding context without being misleading.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief note. Key information (read-only, purpose, endpoint) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on behavior (read-only, names only, endpoint) and adds a caveat about shape verification. Covers essential context for a listing 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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (node, proximo_target). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Clearly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'list configured Ceph CRUSH rules (names only)'. Immediately identifies the tool's action and resource, distinguishing it from other Ceph tools like pool or OSD lists.

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?

Explicitly indicates read-only intent and what it lists. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the description is clear enough for an agent to understand when to use this tool for CRUSH rule listing vs other Ceph operations.

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