list_shares

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: the returned free space is per-volume and shared across all shares on it, which is a real interpretive trap the agent would otherwise misread. It doesn't mention auth requirements or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, role in the workflow, and a disambiguation of the returned free-space value. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be fully explained, and the description still clarifies the volume/free-space semantic. The only real gap is the undocumented parameters, which is a meaningful omission for a tool with sort and pass-through options.

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% across three parameters, including the opaque 'additional' array, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about sort_by, sort_direction, or additional. With low coverage the description must compensate, and here it does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all shared folders on the NAS') and immediately frames itself as the entry point for file navigation, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_files, search_files, and get_dir_size. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance — 'call this first to discover available paths' — and an explicit alternative with its condition: use get_dir_size for per-share space usage. This is textbook when-to-use plus when-to-use-something-else.

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