get_share_link_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that by disclosing the build status lifecycle (pending → processing → ready or failed) and the returned fields (size, last_error). This provides genuine behavioral context without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs in the distinctive return information. 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 tool is simple (one param, read-only, no output schema) and the description does list the key return fields. However, the id parameter's role is left unexplained, and with no output schema the description should carry a bit more weight on what is returned.

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% and the single required parameter 'id' (a number) is never explained in the description. The agent must infer that id identifies the target bundle; the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one share link bundle') and adds the distinguishing feature of build status (pending → processing → ready or failed), which sets bundles apart from plain share links. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_share_link, but the 'bundle' terminology and status lifecycle make the scope clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like list_share_link_bundles (for multiple) or get_share_link (for individual links). Usage is only implied by 'one... bundle', and no exclusions or conditions are given.

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