mcp-openmediavault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of retrieving health assessment data (a read operation), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., if SMART is unsupported), rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., raw attributes vs. summary). This leaves gaps in behavioral context for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get SMART attributes...') and includes the key context ('to assess disk health'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, errors, or output format. For a health assessment tool, more context on what 'assess disk health' entails (e.g., critical attributes, thresholds) would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.

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 100%, with the 'devicefile' parameter fully documented in the schema (including examples and reference to 'list_disks'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'SMART attributes for a specific disk device', with the specific purpose 'to assess disk health'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_smart_device_settings' (which likely configures SMART) and 'get_smart_extended_info' (which might provide different data), making it specific and well-differentiated.

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 usage for disk health assessment, and the schema description for 'devicefile' references 'list_disks to find device files', providing clear context for parameter sourcing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_smart_extended_info' or 'get_smart_device_settings', missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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