Omni-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists mounts but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires permissions, how it handles errors, or the format of the returned list (e.g., structured data or raw text).

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to understand the result.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List') and the resources ('all currently mounted directories, URLs, and databases'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'mount_folder' or 'unmount_folder' which perform different operations on mounts.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently mounted' items, suggesting it should be used to check existing mounts rather than adding or removing them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_sqlite' for querying mounted databases.

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