signalgrid_sharing_services

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral details: null-means-unknown semantics, and that systemsetup checks often require elevation and will return null without it. These nuances are not inferable from annotations alone and are critical for interpreting results correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a security rationale, a reference to a sibling tool, and a precise return specification. While each sentence adds value, the text could arguably be trimmed slightly without loss, hence not a perfect 5.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool reports, how to interpret nulls, potential elevation issues, and the exact return structure. Since the output schema already exists, the description does not need to re-explain return values but goes further by providing context and semantics.

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 there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but the schema is fully covered by the absence of any parameters.

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 defines the tool's purpose: it checks remote-access exposure via SSH, remote Apple events, Screen Sharing, SMB file sharing, and Apple Remote Desktop. The explicit return format (dict mapping service names to enabled states) leaves no doubt about what the tool does, and the focus on sharing services distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_posture or listening_services.

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 context for when this tool is relevant, noting that on managed endpoints most sharing services should be off. It also references signalgrid_security_posture for null semantics, which helps an agent understand the tool's role in a broader security assessment. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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