omv_shell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as arbitrary shell execution but does not warn about destructive potential, permission requirements, side effects, or output behavior, which is a significant gap for an unrestricted shell tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then use cases, then alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an arbitrary shell tool with no output schema, the description explains its scope and relationship to omv_call well. However, it omits timeout behavior, return/output format, and safety caveats, which are important for such a powerful tool.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (command and timeout), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for command types but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Run an arbitrary shell command on the NAS' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from omv_call by explicitly positioning itself for everything outside the RPC layer.

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 provides explicit intended use cases (journalctl, package status, docker commands, disk details) and gives a direct alternative: 'Prefer omv_call for anything OMV manages itself.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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