pve_ceph_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool as READ-ONLY, describes the expected output shape as a nested dict matching 'ceph status', and notes that the shape is not live-verified. This level of detail for a read-only health check is comprehensive.

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 concise for the information it conveys, but the technical phrasing (e.g., 'Smoke-confirm: shape not live-verified') is somewhat dense. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides details, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required params, output schema exists) and the complexity of Ceph, the description adequately covers the expected output structure and the node-scoped alias situation. It lacks an explanation of the 'smoke-confirm' term, but overall is sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (proximo_target) with 100% schema coverage; the schema already includes a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with 'READ-ONLY: cluster-wide Ceph health/status', which clearly states the tool's verb (read), resource (cluster-wide Ceph health/status), and scope. It also mentions the API endpoint and distinguishes from the node-scoped alias, placing it among many Ceph sibling tools uniquely.

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 explicitly advises to 'use this cluster form regardless of which node you'd otherwise target', providing clear guidance to prefer this over a potential node-scoped alternative. It does not, however, compare to other sibling tools like pve_ceph_pool_status or specify when not to use this tool.

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