list_shared_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the newest-first ordering and the special pinned-message ordering (by pin time), plus the JSON shape keyed by type. It omits any auth/permission notes, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then organized Args and Returns blocks with zero filler. The item_type enumeration is long but necessary given the schema has no enums. Slightly list-heavy, but every line earns its place.

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?

All three parameters are documented and the return format is described despite an output schema existing, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly. Ordering semantics and defaults round it out; only cross-tool selection guidance is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does so completely: token, the full enum for item_type, and the differing limit ranges (1-20 across all types, 1-200 for a single type) with the 20 default. This is exactly the compensation a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus the exact resource ('what was shared in a conversation') and enumerates the item types, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_messages or search_files. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 explains the parameter-triggered behaviors ('Empty (default) gives the latest few of every type') which is useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_messages or search_files, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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