get_samba_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is purely read-only or has no side effects. While implied by the 'Get' verb, explicit transparency about non-destructive behavior would improve this score.

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 a single, short sentence (10 words) with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides relevant details.

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 has low complexity (no parameters, output schema exists). The description adequately lists what status is returned, and the output schema covers the return format. No further detail is needed.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there is nothing to explain.

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 tool gets the status of Samba file sharing, listing specific aspects (running, configured shares, connected clients). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_service_status or other get_* status tools.

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 explicit when/when-not/alternatives are provided. While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_service_status or other status tools. The context among many sibling tools suggests a gap in usage differentiation.

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