Share HTML

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'sandboxed share' which hints at security, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as what the tool returns, whether it requires authentication, or side effects. For a creation tool, the return value (e.g., share URL or ID) is missing.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and visibility options. However, it omits the return value, which would improve completeness without adding much length.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not, leaving a gap. The schema provides parameter details well, so the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without assumptions.

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% and already describes all parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema (e.g., the visibility enum values are already described). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'publish' and the resource 'HTML page as a share', specifying the two visibility options (unlisted or access-key protected). It distinguishes from siblings (describe_share_html, get_public_share) which are read-only tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies creation, and siblings imply reading, but no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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 provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses the tool returns a guide but does not mention idempotency, auth requirements, side effects, or data freshness. Minimal 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and content. Efficient and no wasted words.

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?

Sufficient for a simple documentation retrieval tool. Describes return content (routes and safety model). Lacks specification of format or level of detail, but adequate given no output schema.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description correctly adds no parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no need to compensate for undocumented params.

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 returns an AI-readable Share HTML guide covering routes and safety model. Verb 'Return' specifies action, resource is 'Share HTML guide', which distinguishes it from siblings create_share and get_public_share.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. Implicitly it is for retrieving documentation, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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 provided, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch public metadata' which implies a safe read operation, but it does not disclose any potential limitations, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'public' exactly means.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is functionally complete. However, it lacks details about the return format or what constitutes public metadata, which would be helpful for an agent with no prior context.

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% for the single parameter 'slug', which is documented as 'Public Share HTML slug'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the resource type, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'public metadata for a Share HTML slug'. It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'create_share' is for creation and 'describe_share_html' likely provides more detailed information, while this tool is specifically for public metadata.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for fetching public metadata, but does not clarify when to prefer it over 'describe_share_html' or how it relates to 'create_share'.

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