mcp-openmediavault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it clearly describes the action and resource, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the output returns, if there are rate limits, or potential error conditions. The description is purely functional without 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful clarifying context in a natural flow.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate functional context about what's being listed. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it lacks important operational details about authentication requirements, response format, and error handling that would be helpful for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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') and resource ('rsync daemon modules'), with additional clarifying context about what these modules represent ('server-side rsync shares') and where they're configured ('in OpenMediaVault'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_rsync_jobs' which handles different rsync-related resources.

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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying the resource type and configuration location, which helps differentiate it from similar listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_rsync_jobs' or provide any exclusion criteria.

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