Unraid API vars

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond this: the returned projection is deliberately sanitized and excludes credentials and unique device IDs. This is valuable disclosure that annotations do not provide.

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 sentence of about a dozen words, with the core behavior front-loaded and every word contributing meaning. It efficiently conveys both what the tool returns and what it omits, with no filler or redundancy.

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 and zero parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent should expect. It clearly states the exclusions but does not enumerate or characterize the included vars, and 'operational projection' is vague enough that an agent may not know what fields or categories to expect in the response.

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 are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Unraid vars'), and further clarifies that the result is a sanitized 'operational projection' with credentials and unique device IDs excluded. This distinguishes it from raw config or settings queries, though the term 'operational projection' is somewhat jargon-heavy and leaves the exact nature of 'vars' underdefined.

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 does not state when to prefer this tool over the many sibling query tools, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion condition. The 'safe' wording implicitly suggests use when a redacted vars view is needed, but that is left to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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