ZFS Pool Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the returned content (vdev tree, scrub results, errors), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting cost of a full 'zpool status' scan on many pools.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and content, with the filtering detail last. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, zero-required-param diagnostic tool, the description supplies the key missing piece (what status information is returned) since no output schema exists. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether health/state summary fields are included.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional param is fully documented in the schema ('omit for all pools'). The description's 'Optionally filter to a specific pool' restates that without adding new syntax or format detail, 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') and resource ('ZFS pool status') and enumerates the content covered: vdev tree, scrub results, errors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling zfs_list_pools (a bare listing) and zfs_pool_iostat (performance counters).

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?

Implies usage (inspect pool health/details) and notes the optional pool filter, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs zfs_list_pools or zfs_pool_get_property, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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