get_netshare_samba

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only lists possible error codes but does not disclose the tool's behavior, such as whether it is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or side effects.

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 very short but poorly structured; error codes are listed without context or formatting. It is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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 that the tool retrieves a configuration object with potentially many fields, the description provides no details about the return value or its structure. The output schema exists but is not referenced or summarized, making the tool's purpose vague.

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 no parameters, so the description adds no parameter information. However, it also does not explain what the returned SambaConfig contains, despite the existence of an output schema. A neutral score is appropriate.

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 'Get the SambaConfig' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (SambaConfig). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_netshare_afp', which likely retrieves a similar AFP config.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'put_netshare_samba' or other get tools. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.

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