Ncrypt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it partly meets it by explaining that each link gets its own code and trace code so view history attributes viewers per share. It omits authorization requirements, uniqueness constraints on trace_code, and whether revocation/limits apply.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the rationale sentence about trace codes justifies its length. 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?

For a no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, an agent would still want to know what is returned (a link URL/code?) and what permissions are needed. The description covers the conceptual 'why' but leaves the operational mechanics thin.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's note about per-link codes adds conceptual context but no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an additional share link for a document') plus the scoping condition that the document must already exist. The word 'additional' signals the additive nature, though it never names the sibling ncrypt_create_share_link to make the distinction unambiguous.

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?

'A document can be shared as many times as needed' implies this is the repeat-share path, which is implied usage rather than explicit routing. With a near-identical sibling (ncrypt_create_share_link) present, the description should say when to pick one over the other, and it does not.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that recipients must supply a name and valid email before reading, that the file is encrypted at rest, and that downloads are denied pending owner approval. It omits owner-side auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every sentence carries information about behavior or input mode. The middle sentence is dense but each clause adds a distinct security-relevant fact rather than padding.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral contract (recipient gating, encryption, download approval) and the input-mode options. It stops short of describing the returned link's shape or any expiry/ownership requirements, which leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of semantics by presenting url, content_base64, and storage_path as alternative input modes, but it does not resolve precedence when multiple are supplied and never mentions the required filename 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: upload a document and return a private share link, which is clearly distinguishable from ncrypt_add_share_link and ncrypt_list_documents by the upload-and-create framing. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the third sentence enumerates the three ways to supply the file (base64, public https URL, owner storage path), which tells the agent how to invoke it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus ncrypt_add_share_link, no prerequisites, and no guidance on which input mode to prefer when several are available.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully names the returned fields (viewer, timestamp, device, duration), which is real value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, privacy masking of viewer identities, result limits, or whether long-term historical data is retained.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists the enums of the response in a scannable order. Zero padding or restatement of the name.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool it does describe the return payload, which is the most important missing structured information. However, permission requirements and the format of the required documentId are absent, leaving meaningful gaps before an agent could call it reliably.

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% for the single parameter, and the description only alludes to it as 'a document'. It does not specify whether documentId is a raw ID, a UUID, or a path/URL, nor any constraints, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('view analytics') and enumerates the exact payload dimensions (who, when, device, duration), so an agent immediately knows what data this yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools, but those are share-link and document-listing operations that are plainly unrelated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites stated, such as whether the caller must own the document or have analytics permissions. The agent is left to infer that this is an analytics lookup for a document it already has an ID for.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (share codes, view counts), which signals a read-only listing, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or auth requirements for a workspace listing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned data with zero filler. Every clause 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what is returned (documents with share codes and view counts). It is largely sufficient, though pagination and ordering behavior remain unstated.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate; the description neither adds nor omits parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (documents) and scopes it to the owner's Ncrypt workspace, plus names the returned fields (share codes, view counts). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ncrypt_get_view_analytics, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to enumerate documents in your workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on how this differs from ncrypt_get_view_analytics, which also surfaces view counts.

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