list_shared_with_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical hints at the returned shape (paths where the items appear), which is useful, but there is no statement about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether folders are recursed.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, no filler. The trailing parenthetical 'paths where they appear' is slightly opaque but does not waste space.

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?

This is a parameterless, read-only listing tool with no output schema, so the description need only convey what it lists and the sharing direction — which it does. The main residual gap is not distinguishing itself from list_shares or indicating result shape beyond 'paths'.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level value could be added, and none is missing.

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 (list) and resource (files and folders shared with the current user), scoping direction of sharing (incoming, not outgoing). It does not name the sibling list_shares — which is the natural point of confusion (shares you created vs. shares others made for you) — so the differentiation 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?

The phrase 'shared with the current user' implies the use case, but there is no explicit instruction on when to use this instead of list_files, search_files, or list_shares, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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