Unraid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain the 'confirm' flag's role in gating destructive actions, whether operations mutate state, permission/auth requirements, or rate limits. For a multi-purpose gateway that can perform writes, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role and followed by the discovery instruction. Efficient and free of filler, though too terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a complex gateway tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, yet the description explains only the entry-point concept. It omits the domain/action/params interaction and confirm semantics; the output schema covers return values, but the call contract remains underspecified.

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% and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. It hints that 'action' comes from health.capabilities, but says nothing about 'domain', the free-form 'params' object, or the 'confirm' boolean, leaving four undocumented parameters.

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 states the tool is a 'single entry point for all Unraid operations', which clarifies its role as a dispatcher rather than a specific verb+resource. However, it never says what kinds of operations exist (storage, VMs, shares, etc.), so an agent still needs to call health.capabilities to understand the tool's actual scope.

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?

It gives one actionable step: 'Use health.capabilities to discover available actions', which is genuine usage guidance for a discovery-first gateway. There are no sibling tools to distinguish from and no when-not-to-use guidance, so it is implied usage at best.

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