mcp-synology

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the overwrite protection default and the configuration dependency for dest_folder, which agents need to handle errors correctly.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly imperative tone ('Provide the NAS file path') rather than descriptive, but efficient and readable.

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 the output schema exists (no need to document return values) and annotations cover safety profile, the description captures the essential complexities: the config-dependent optional parameter and the file collision behavior. Missing only what happens on filename conflicts.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'path' ('NAS file path') and 'dest_folder' (optional condition), and implies 'overwrite' behavior. However, it completely omits 'filename' and doesn't describe parameter formats or validation rules.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Download'), clear resource ('NAS file'), and destination ('local directory'), distinguishing it from sibling listing/info tools like list_files and get_file_info.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'dest_folder is optional if default_download_dir is configured' and safety behavior 'Does not overwrite existing local files by default'. Lacks explicit comparison to when to use list_files vs download_file, though the distinction is clear.

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