File Share List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about this being a read-only, side-effect-free operation, what volume of results to expect, or pagination behavior. '列出' implies a read, but no explicit confirmation is given for a tool with zero 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool in a crowded share-tool family, so it does not fully earn its brevity.

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, but the tool has five optional connection parameters, no annotations, and several confusable siblings. The description does nothing to disambiguate or set expectations, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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% and all five parameters (uid, host, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the uid concept ('指定用户') and adds nothing about connection parameters or the profile/session semantics.

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+resource ('列出' file shares) scoped to a user, so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling tools file_share_list_others, file_share_admin_list, and file_share_admin_list_others, so an agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferred over file_share_list_others or file_share_info, and no prerequisites (e.g. authentication/profile requirements). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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