Unraid API upsConfiguration

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scope context by listing the four configuration areas covered. However, it discloses nothing about the response shape or whether the data is live or cached — gaps that matter since there is no output schema.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before enumerating scope categories. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, repetition, or schema duplication.

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, idempotent query tool, the description is nearly sufficient: annotations cover safety, and the description covers what the tool returns. It falls short only by not clarifying how it differs from unraid_get_ups or query_ups_devices, which the sibling list shows are closely related.

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 and there is nothing for the schema to document. The description adds value by previewing the payload scope (service, connection, network, shutdown configuration), which is the closest thing to semantic content a parameterless tool can offer.

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') with a clear resource (UPS configuration) and enumerates the scope in concrete terms: 'service, connection, network, and shutdown configuration.' This differentiates it from sibling device-query tools (query_ups_devices, query_ups_device_by_id) and the status-oriented unraid_get_ups through the word 'configuration,' though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not state when to prefer this over unraid_get_ups, query_ups_devices, or query_ups_device_by_id, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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