Unraid API cloud

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable extra context by promising the API key is not returned, which is an important behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence: it states the action, the resource, and the key safety qualifier with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only query, the description is mostly complete: it says what is checked and what is deliberately not returned. It does not describe the response shape, but the absence of parameters and presence of safety annotations lower that burden.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') plus distinct resource ('cloud connectivity and API-key validity') and adds a meaningful security qualifier ('without returning the key'). This clearly separates it from siblings like unraid_v4371_query_api_keys and unraid_v4371_query_api_key, so an agent can identify the tool without opening schemas.

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 this tool is for checking cloud connectivity and API-key validity safely without exposing the key, which hints it should be preferred over key-returning alternatives. However, it never explicitly names those alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so routing guidance is mostly implicit.

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