mcp-synology

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

Annotations cover read-only safety, but the description adds valuable return value semantics by listing specific metadata fields returned (size, owner, timestamps, permissions, real path), including the notable 'real path' indicating symlink resolution. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with efficient colon-separated list of attributes. Front-loaded action ('Get detailed metadata') followed by scoping clause. No redundancy or waste.

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?

Appropriate for complexity: output schema exists so return format needs minimal description, annotations cover safety profile, and the listed metadata fields provide sufficient expectations. Could note batch/array capability given plural 'paths' parameter.

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 description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately. It mentions 'specific files or folders' but does not clarify that 'paths' accepts an array, whether absolute/relative paths are required, or shell globbing support. The mapping between the parameter name and description is implicit.

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 specific verb 'Get' with resource 'detailed metadata' and clearly defines scope as 'files or folders'. It distinguishes from siblings like download_file (content), list_files (directory enumeration), and search_files (discovery) by emphasizing metadata retrieval for specific targets.

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 description implies specificity ('specific files or folders') distinguishing it from directory listing or search tools, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives for when paths are unknown.

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