smbclient

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

Description discloses output types and anonymous/null-session usage, but no annotations exist so it must carry the full burden. It does not explain uploads' side effects, permissions, or interactive/error behavior, leaving clear gaps.

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?

Four sentences each serve a distinct role: purpose, usage, alternatives, and output. Purpose is front-loaded; there is slight overlap between 'connects' and 'Use to access' but no wasted content.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names expected output forms. Combined with full schema coverage, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly; optional behavioral depth is the only notable omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions anonymous/null session and output types, but those are largely restatements of schema fields and add no new syntax or constraints.

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?

First sentence names a specific verb ('connects') and resource ('Windows file shares'), with browsing/downloading/uploading. It also contrasts with nmap/crackmapexec and enum4linux, so it is distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use to access SMB shares...') and when not ('For SMB vulnerability scanning, use nmap or crackmapexec. For automated share enumeration, use enum4linux.'). No inference required.

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