omv_rpc

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags mutating behavior, and the description adds 'UNRESTRICTED -- can call mutating methods too,' reinforcing and expanding on that. It also explains how to discover methods, which is useful context beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose and example. It contains no filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 generic passthrough tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the fact that it is unrestricted, and how to find method names. It lacks return value or error behavior details, but those are less critical for an arbitrary RPC passthrough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example `omv-rpc -u admin <service> <method> <params>` clarifies the ordering and purpose of the three parameters, but it does not provide individual descriptions or constraints for each parameter.

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 it is a 'Generic OMV RPC passthrough' with an example command, making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from the specific sibling tools by being an unrestricted arbitrary RPC caller.

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?

It notes 'UNRESTRICTED -- can call mutating methods too,' implying it is a catch-all for RPC methods not covered by specific tools. It also gives a method discovery path, but does not explicitly state when to prefer other tools.

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