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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination (implied by the 'limit' parameter), whether the list is filtered or complete, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system data.

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 and includes essential output details without redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or system-specific behaviors, which could be important for a list operation in a system management context.

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 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 specific action ('List all local groups'), target resource ('in OpenMediaVault'), and output details ('with GID, comment, and member list'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'enumerate_groups' by specifying the exact data fields returned, making the purpose unambiguous and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enumerate_groups' or 'get_group', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for tool selection, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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