List Unraid shares

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or any ordering/filtering behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every part of the description adds information about the tool's scope or output fields.

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, annotated read-only tool, the core call contract is mostly complete. However, the existence of a closely named sibling, unraid_v4371_query_shares, creates ambiguity about which share-listing tool to invoke, and the description does not resolve it. A short comparison or exclusion would make the description contextually complete.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The field list in the description compensates for the absent output schema by indicating what the returned data will contain, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('user shares') and enumerates the fields returned: capacity, allocation, cache, disk inclusion, and LUKS status. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool unraid_v4371_query_shares, which likely covers a similar share-listing use case.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus unraid_v4371_query_shares or other sibling list/query tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the title and field list alone.

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