omv_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important async behavior: some heavier methods run in the background and return a filename that must be passed to omv_wait_for_task. However, it does not warn that RPC calls may be destructive or require elevated permissions, nor does it describe the normal return format beyond the background case. This is meaningful but incomplete transparency.

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 moderately sized but each sentence contributes: the main-tool claim, the scope, the async behavior, and examples. It is front-loaded with purpose and uses examples efficiently. It could be tightened slightly, but it is well-structured for a generic RPC facade.

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?

The tool is a generic and potentially complex RPC wrapper with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the async path and gives examples, but it does not mention how to discover valid method/service names via omv_list_methods or omv_list_services, nor does it describe normal return values or error behavior. Given the complexity, this is only partially complete.

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 schema already covers all four parameters with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing full call examples, illustrating how the params object is constructed, and explicitly stating that params should be omitted for methods taking none. This extra guidance helps the agent correctly format arguments.

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 clearly states the tool calls an OpenMediaVault RPC method and is the main tool. It goes beyond a simple verb+resource by noting that 'anything the web interface can do is available here,' which effectively defines its broad scope and distinguishes it from the sibling helper tools. Concrete examples reinforce the resource and action.

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 gives strong context for when to use the tool: it is the 'main' RPC entry point covering everything the web UI can do. It also explicitly explains that heavier background methods require passing the returned filename to omv_wait_for_task, which is an explicit alternative workflow. It does not mention omv_list_methods or omv_list_services for discovery, so it lacks complete exclusion/alternative guidance.

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