whodb_platform_shared_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note - the workspace override is per-call only and does not mutate defaults - but says nothing about what 'inspect' returns, pagination, or any token/auth requirements, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter note, with no filler. Slightly parameter-heavy for such a short description but nothing is wasted.

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 inspection tool with no output schema, the description should at least characterize what the inspection yields (package metadata? files? installation state?), and it does not. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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% and the nested workspace object is fully documented in the schema, including the default-resolution order. The description's second sentence largely restates what the workspace parameter already says, so it adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect) and a scoped resource (a package shared through a hosted package share token), which is narrower than the sibling whodb_platform_package and whodb_platform_packages. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of a 'share token' signals the situation in which this tool applies, but the description never states when to prefer it over whodb_platform_package or the preview_shared_* tools, and gives no exclusions.

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