mcp-synology

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

Annotations confirm read-only safety (readOnlyHint=true), while the description adds valuable workflow context about discovery and navigation entry points. It appropriately notes that this reveals 'available paths' for subsequent operations, adding conceptual behavior beyond the raw 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?

Two tightly constructed sentences. The first states the core function; the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or tautology.

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 tool's simple purpose, existing output schema, and clear read-only annotations, the description is complete. It adequately covers the discovery purpose and workflow position without needing to elaborate return values.

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. It does not mention the 'sort_by' or 'sort_direction' parameters at all, leaving the agent uninformed about sorting capabilities despite the schema lacking descriptions for these optional fields.

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 a specific verb ('List') with explicit resource ('shared folders on the NAS') and scope ('all'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_files' by establishing this as the root-level discovery operation for shared folders rather than directory contents.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'This is the starting point for file navigation — call this first to discover available paths.' This clearly positions the tool in the workflow hierarchy and specifies when to invoke it before using other file navigation siblings.

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