pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It partially discharges this by describing the return payload (mediatype, usage classification, capacity figures, volume ids) and defining what a pool is, which is meaningful context with no output schema. However, it never states that the operation is a read-only enumeration, whether results are paginated or bounded, or what permission scope is needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, followed by a compact definition of the domain object. No filler or redundant restatement of the name. The parenthetical '(Backup/Archive)' is a useful enum hint rather than noise.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what comes back and what a pool is, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about read-only semantics or result-size behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description adds nothing about arguments because there are none. The slight deduction reflects that it also does not clarify that the call is unfiltered and unconditional, which is the only parameter-like fact an agent might want.

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 names the resource (media pools) and enumerates the returned attributes — mediatype, usage (Backup/Archive), used/total size, volume ids — so an agent knows exactly what this call yields. It is clearly a list/enumeration tool and is distinguishable from siblings like jobs or inventory by its domain object. It stops short of an explicit verb phrase such as 'list all', which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the fact that the tool returns a collection. For a zero-parameter read tool the inference is easy, but the description itself supplies no routing guidance.

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