mcp-openmediavault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure, possible values). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and target, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, output format) and usage context, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It's functional but leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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?

The description mentions 'for a specific disk', which aligns with the single parameter 'devicefile' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully describes the parameter as 'Device file path of the disk'), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('SMART monitoring settings for a specific disk'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_smart_info' or 'get_smart_extended_info', which likely provide related but different SMART data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_smart_info' or 'get_smart_extended_info', nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a specific disk device. It only implies usage by specifying 'for a specific disk', but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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