get_share_link_token

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It lists error codes (invalid_id, path_not_found, internal_error), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. For a simple read operation, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences communicate purpose and possible errors. No wasted words, and the core function is front-loaded. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers purpose and errors. It lacks information about the token format or prerequisites, but the output schema compensates for return details. Overall, sufficient for contextual understanding.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description adds that the tool takes 'the given id', loosely tying the parameter to an identifier, but mislabels it as 'id' instead of 'token'. This adds minimal value and could confuse. Description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Returns the ShareLink task' indicating a retrieval operation. However, it refers to 'the given id' while the schema parameter is named 'token', creating a slight mismatch that reduces clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_share_link_token and post_share_link.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_share_link. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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