File Share Admin List Others

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. The phrase '管理员视角' weakly implies elevated privileges are required, but it discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, permission failures, or scope of the listing.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the scoping qualifiers are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the four parameters are fully documented in the schema. But for a tool sitting among several near-duplicate share-listing siblings with no annotations, the description is too thin to let an agent confidently select and invoke it.

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%, with host/port/scheme/profile each documented in the schema, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (list shares) with scope qualifiers: 'admin perspective' and 'other users', which distinguishes it from file_share_list (own shares). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling file_share_list_others, leaving the agent to guess which of the two near-identical names to use.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent when this admin-scoped variant is preferred over file_share_list or file_share_list_others, despite three closely related siblings existing.

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