File Share Admin List

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 only says 'list', implying a read operation, but discloses nothing about required permissions, what 'admin perspective' means operationally, pagination, or scope of results. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 tool with five optional parameters, no annotations, and a very close sibling (file_share_admin_list_others), the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the admin perspective, the relationship to alternatives, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct selection.

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 five parameters (uid, host, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 states a clear verb and resource ('列出文件共享') and scopes it to an administrator perspective, which separates it from user-facing siblings like file_share_list. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against the very similar sibling file_share_admin_list_others.

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 phrase '管理员视角' implies an admin context but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as file_share_list or file_share_admin_list_others. The agent is left to infer whether this tool lists all shares, admin-owned shares, or shares visible to an admin account.

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