share_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states the operation but does not mention whether permissions are required, whether sharing creates visible messages, whether duplicate shares are possible, or what the response contains. For a mutating operation, this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with only two well-documented required parameters, and the description clarifies the operation's nature. No output schema is present, but the absence is not critical for this simple sharing action. The main gap is lack of behavioral detail, but the core invocation context is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema by emphasizing the file must be 'existing' and that channels are 'additional,' which clarifies that this is not the initial upload or first share.

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 names a specific verb ('share'), a specific resource ('existing Slack file'), and the target action ('to additional channels'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like upload_file, list_files, get_file_info, and delete_file.

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 'existing file' and 'additional channels' implies the file must already exist in Slack and already be shared somewhere, which gives useful context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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