List Shares (SMB / NFS / iSCSI)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares it a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context by noting the exact output fields (name/path, enabled state) and the 'all configured' scope. However, it does not disclose any potential limits (pagination, performance) or clarify what 'enabled state' means. This is on par with the calibration example where annotations carry the safety profile.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and specific output, while the second provides a user-oriented summary ('what is this NAS actually serving?'). No redundant words or phrases.

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?

The tool is a read-only listing operation with a single optional parameter and an output schema present. The description sufficiently covers the scope, returned fields, and purpose without needing to detail return structures since an output schema exists. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 is fully covered (100% coverage) with a clear description of the single response_format parameter, including enum values and default. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides complete information, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and explicitly names the target resources: 'SMB shares, NFS exports, and iSCSI targets'. It also states the scope ('all configured') and the useful output ('each with their name/path and enabled state'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list pools, datasets, alerts, etc.

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 title and description make it obvious this is the tool for listing file and block shares across all three protocols. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context signals and sibling list clearly delineate it as the sole share-listing tool. The phrase 'in one call' hints at the consolidated use case.

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