whodb_platform_share_dependents

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is not the description's burden. The description still adds real value: it discloses that each item carries a default role, and that workspace targeting is per-call and does not mutate defaults — behavior not visible in the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the targeting detail, with no filler. The second sentence largely duplicates the workspace schema description, so it is not perfectly economical, but it remains tight.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, output content (default roles), and targeting behavior adequately. It omits return-shape specifics and pagination, but those gaps are minor given the annotations and rich schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including the nested workspace object and its host/org/project fields) are already documented. The description restates the workspace shape and its non-persistent behavior, which the schema itself already states, so it adds little beyond 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 states a specific verb (list) and a clearly-scoped resource (resources that must be shared alongside a given resource, with default roles). It is understandable without opening the schema, but it never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent sharing tools such as shared_by_me, shared_with_me, or resource_permissions.

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 "must be shared alongside a resource for it to work" implies the use case (determining share dependencies), and the workspace sentence hints at per-call targeting. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many sharing/permission siblings, so guidance is only implied.

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