ZFS Pool I/O Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the metrics are sampled over a 3-second window, implying the call blocks briefly and returns a time-averaged snapshot rather than an instantaneous value.

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 resource, the metrics, and the sampling window with zero waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only stats tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits whether elevated privileges are required and gives no hint of return shape, but with no output schema and a trivial input that is a minor gap.

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 optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Pool name (omit for all pools)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the pool parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Show) plus resource (ZFS pool I/O statistics) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (ops, bandwidth, latency), which is far more concrete than the sibling name zfs_pool_status alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with zfs_pool_status or zfs_list_pools, so sibling disambiguation is left implicit.

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 guidance on when to choose this over zfs_pool_status or zfs_list_pools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether ZFS/root is needed). Usage is only inferable from the metric list, which is weaker than the 'clear context' bar.

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