list_shared_folders

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only listing, describe the return format, or mention any permissions or side effects. The brief phrase only lists data fields.

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 compact phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the resource name and key fields, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces structural quality.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explicitly state that the tool returns a list of shared folders with the specified properties. It currently only provides a noun phrase, omitting the action and any context about scope or return structure. This is minimal and barely adequate.

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 schema is empty and there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what is already absent.

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 identifies the resource (OMV shared folders) and enumerates expected output fields (name, path, device), making the tool's purpose fairly clear. It relies on the tool name for the verb 'list' and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_smb_shares, though without explicit contrast.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_smb_shares or list_filesystems. There are no stated prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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