auto_share_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scan types, verdicts, and redact-list behavior, but lacks details on operational implications (e.g., read-only, prerequisites, how 'critical quality' is judged).

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?

Extremely concise; every line adds value: the question frames the use case, the verdicts define outcomes, and the redact-list note signals return structure. No wasted words.

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 description covers basics but leaves gaps: no guidance on when to choose this over individual check tools, no mention of whether it's mutating, and 'critical quality' is undefined. The output schema may fill return-format details, but operational context is thin.

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 one parameter (source_id) is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should have explained it; the name is self-explanatory but no additional meaning is provided.

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's purpose: assessing external share-safety via PII, bias, and quality checks. The verdict list distinguishes it from sibling check tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 opening question implies the use case (sharing externally), but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this combined tool versus individual sibling checks like check_pii or check_bias.

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