Unraid API previewEffectivePermissions

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 structurally. 'Preview' is consistent with these hints and adds the notion of computing/combining effective grants, but the description discloses no further behavior — for example, whether roles and permissions are combined, whether they are alternatives, or what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler; the operative verb 'Preview' is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool, though it leans toward under-specification rather than polished completeness.

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?

With no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and multiple similar auth/permission siblings, a single sentence cannot adequately equip an agent to call this tool correctly. Missing pieces include the shape of the preview result, how roles and permissions combine, and how this tool differs from unraid_v4371_query_permissions_for_roles.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It does add interpretative value by mapping 'role' to the roles parameter and 'explicit permission grants' to the permissions parameter, and the inline enums (ADMIN/VIEWER roles, READ_ANY/CREATE_ANY actions) are self-descriptive. However, it does not explain how the two parameters interact, their optionality, or any default behavior, leaving the agent to guess at combination semantics.

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 operation ('Preview effective role and explicit permission grants') with a clear verb and resource: it computes effective permissions from roles and explicit grants. However, it does not differentiate itself from the highly similar sibling 'unraid_v4371_query_permissions_for_roles', so an agent cannot tell which tool answers a given permissions question without opening both 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives apply. Given the near-sibling 'unraid_v4371_query_permissions_for_roles' and related auth-query tools (query_api_key_possible_roles, query_api_key_possible_permissions, query_available_auth_actions), the absence of any routing guidance is a notable gap.

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