Unraid API network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no side-effect warning is needed. The description adds value by indicating what kind of data is returned (configured network access URLs), and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler; every word contributes meaning. 'Get configured' immediately communicates the action, and the enumeration of URL types is compact and informative.

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, non-destructive read operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to call the tool correctly. The annotations cover safety, and the description states what the agent will receive in return.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the result content rather than parameter behavior, as nothing else is needed to invoke the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('configured ... access URLs'), and enumerates concrete categories: LAN, WAN, WireGuard, mDNS. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_network_interfaces, which target interfaces rather than access URLs.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs the system's configured access URLs. However, there is no explicit contrast with related siblings such as query_network_interfaces, query_cloud, or query_remote_access, so the agent must infer which tool is appropriate.

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