List share links

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the HTTP route, which usefully reveals that share links are per-report, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether revoked links are included.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical route is the only extra, and it carries real information rather than restating the 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 one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, this is close to adequate but still thin: it does not state what a share link object contains or whether results are paginated. The `id` meaning is only recoverable by parsing the URL, not stated directly.

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% and the single parameter is only typed as a bare string, so the description must compensate. The endpoint template does clarify that `id` is the report identifier, which is genuinely useful, but no format or accepted-value detail is given.

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 and resource ("List share links") and the endpoint template makes clear the listing is scoped to a single report. Sibling tools shareLinks_create and shareLinks_revoke are implicitly separated by verb, though they are never named.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name that this is the read counterpart to shareLinks_create and shareLinks_revoke.

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