File Share 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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about required permissions (does listing other users' shares need admin rights?), pagination, whether it returns all shares or a page, or how it behaves on unauthorized access. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but the access/permission semantics remain undisclosed.

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 core action front-loaded. It is not bloated, though its brevity is more a symptom of under-specification than of disciplined editing.

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?

Placeholder.

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%; all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("列出" / "共享"), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as file_share_list, file_share_admin_list, and file_share_admin_list_others — what exactly makes a share "other user's" (as opposed to own shares or admin-visible shares) is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus file_share_list (own shares?) or file_share_admin_list_others (admin-scoped?). No prerequisites, permission notes, or exclusions are given, so the agent must guess from the name alone.

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