List ZFS Pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the interesting behavioral detail that results include health and autotrim status, but says nothing about ordering, cost, or how pools are enumerated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb and resource first, then the salient returned fields. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is doing real work in place of structured output documentation. Combined with annotations that cover the read-only safety profile, this is close to complete, lacking only any note on ordering or scope limits.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-level value could be added beyond the empty 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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('all ZFS pools') and enumerates the fields returned (size, allocation, fragmentation, health, autotrim), which distinguishes it from single-pool siblings like zfs_pool_status. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 word 'all' implies a broad overview use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer zfs_pool_status or zfs_pool_iostat, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from context.

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