mcp-openmediavault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what data is returned (disk attributes) but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether this is a real-time query versus cached data. The description is accurate but lacks operational context.

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?

Single sentence efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return data. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action ('List all physical disks'). Every element serves a purpose.

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?

For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return data adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about how the data is obtained or formatted.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns.

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 ('List') and resource ('all physical disks detected by OpenMediaVault') with specific attributes included (model, vendor, size, serial number, temperature, SMART status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_filesystems' or 'list_raid_devices' by focusing specifically on physical disks.

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 when needing disk information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_smart_info' or 'list_raid_devices'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context of OpenMediaVault provides some implicit guidance.

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