create_shareable_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions it's a utility and a stub, but does not describe side effects, permissions, return values, or whether the action is reversible. For a create tool, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential context about the stub server.

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 stub nature, the description is adequate but lacks details about the created report's properties, lifespan, and how the secret link works. The absence of an output schema is not compensated for by the description.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds usage context but no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, satisfying the baseline.

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 the tool creates a secret-link public snapshot report after explicit user request to publish/share. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_shareable_report and update_shareable_report, and identifies itself as a utility stub.

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?

It specifies the tool should be used only after the user explicitly asks to publish or share, and notes that this local server is an introspection stub. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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