Get exact version share link

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating 'Disabled shares return no URL,' which is not obvious from annotations. It also clarifies the read nature, but it does not provide details about error cases or authentication requirements, though the annotations lower the burden.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose with a verb and provides a key edge case in the second sentence. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the core function, the scope ('one exact saved version'), and a key behavioral edge case (disabled shares return no URL). However, it is vague about the 'durable' nature, does not describe the return format, and leaves the 'page' parameter unexplained, so there is still a minor completeness 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-specific meaning. While project_id and version_id are reasonably self-explanatory, the optional 'page' parameter is entirely ambiguous, and the description does not clarify the relationship between parameters or which are required. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('durable sharing state and current URL') plus a scope qualifier ('for one exact saved version'). It distinguishes this read tool from the sibling create_version_share_link and revoke_version_share_link operations.

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 implies the tool is for reading existing share state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_version_share_link or revoke_version_share_link. There are no exclusionary guidelines or alternative tool names mentioned, so usage is only implied.

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