anon_get_lostfound_share

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

Reveals behavior well beyond the annotations: that this nominally read-only call lazily CREATES a share document, that the default state is enabled=false with a random token, and that repeated GETs return the same token (idempotent). It also gives the permission requirement and the public page URL format. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then permission, then the lazy-creation caveat, then the endpoint. Every line adds information, though the raw 'GET /api/projects/{id}/lostfound/share' line is somewhat redundant against the tool name.

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 no-param GET with no output schema, the description covers the permission gate, the side effect, the token stability guarantee, and what the public URL looks like - everything an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that no projectId should be passed because the project is derived from the current API key, preventing an agent from inventing a parameter.

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 specific verb+resource: retrieve the lost-and-found public share info. The GET verb and '获取...分享信息' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling anon_put_lostfound_share, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell what it returns (share config + token).

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?

Discloses the required 'lostfound:manage' permission, which is useful usage context. However it never states when to call this versus anon_put_lostfound_share (which mutates the same share config) or anon_get_lostfound, leaving selection to be inferred from the verb.

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