whodb_platform_shared_with_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral nuance — that workspace targeting is per-call and does not change session defaults — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the targeting caveat. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause carries information.

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, zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits any statement of what the output contains (no output schema exists), leaving the agent to guess at the result shape, but that is a minor gap.

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% (all five params, including the nested workspace object, are documented in-schema). The description's workspace sentence largely restates what the schema already says about per-call targeting, 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List resources shared with the signed-in user'), which is a clear read operation and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling whodb_platform_shared_by_me by scope direction. However, it never names that sibling or any other alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 hints at usage via the per-call workspace targeting note, which tells the agent this tool can be pointed at a specific host/org/project. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as whodb_platform_shared_by_me or whodb_platform_shared_ontologies.

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