Unraid API internalBootContext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context by noting that destructive-operation warnings are part of the returned information, which is useful, but it does not describe any further behavioral traits such as response format or warning semantics.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the four return facets. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 low complexity (no parameters), the rich annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable orientation by naming the key output categories. It could be more detailed about how destructive-operation warnings are represented, but it is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters, though it still summarizes the returned content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a precise resource ('internal-boot context'), with a concrete list of what it returns: eligibility, names, disks, and destructive-operation warnings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling query tools like query_flash or query_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 internal-boot information is needed, but it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related query tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is inferable from the name and content but not explicitly stated.

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