smbclient_list_shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a network scan, if it requires credentials, potential side effects, or error behavior. The description is purely functional and lacks depth.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each parameter is explained, but there is slight redundancy ('leave empty for anonymous' repeated). Overall, it is concise and structurally clear.

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 simple listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics: target, credentials, and port. However, it lacks guidance on output format, authentication failures, or when this tool is preferable to other SMB enumeration tools, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning beyond the schema: target is IP/hostname, username/password empty for anonymous, port default 445. This provides practical context not present in the bare 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?

The description clearly states the action 'List SMB shares' and the resource 'target host', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling scan tools. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 by explaining parameter values (e.g., empty username/password for anonymous), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools like enum4linux_scan or nmap_service_detection. It's minimal but not misleading.

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