share_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable context: it discloses the exact return fields, clarifies that permission/access are string labels, and importantly explains that view_level is intentionally omitted due to API behavior. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the primary action, lists the return fields in a clear format, and adds a note about view_level that is critical for avoiding confusion. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It covers the return structure, the key omission (view_level), and provides cross-reference to the setter tool. The description fully supports correct invocation without unnecessary elaboration.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates by stating that the notebook parameter 'accepts a notebook name or ID.' This gives the agent the key semantic information needed to provide a valid argument, though it could add more detail about format or validation.

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's function: 'Get a notebook's sharing status.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like share_set_access, share_set_user, and share_remove_user, which modify sharing rather than read it.

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 usage context by positioning this as a read operation and explicitly notes that view_level is not returned and should be set via share_set_access. This provides a clear alternative for a related action, though it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when you need to read sharing status' as a standalone guideline.

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