mcp-synology

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

Annotations declare readOnly/destructive profile. Description adds behavioral context about pagination, sorting, and filtering capabilities, though it lacks details on recursion depth, error handling, or maximum limits.

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 efficient sentences. First establishes core purpose, second enumerates capabilities. No redundant or wasted text; front-loaded with essential information.

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 (covering return values) and annotations cover safety, the description meets minimum needs but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation given 0% schema coverage across 7 parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by mapping 'glob pattern' to pattern, 'file type' to filetype, etc., but omits crucial semantics for the required 'path' parameter and valid values for sort_by/filetype enums.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and resource 'files and folders' with scope 'in a directory'. It implies directory enumeration rather than global search, distinguishing it from sibling search_files, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_files (which might be better for recursive finding) or get_file_info (for single file details). Simply lists capabilities without contextual selection criteria.

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