list_document_share_links

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already signals that this operation is safe and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds the scoping detail that all share links for a named document are returned, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or whether empty results are possible. With the annotation covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is one concise sentence that states the action, the resource, and the scope with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, and the key scoping phrase is front and center.

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 simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and a readOnlyHint, the description is mostly complete: an agent can select it and know to pass a document ID. A small gap is that it does not mention the return shape or that this is the per-document counterpart to list_share_links, though neither is essential for invoking it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'id', is described as 'The document ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'List all share links for a specific document.' It is clear that the tool lists share links scoped to one document, which differentiates it from the broader sibling list_share_links. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 'for a specific document' implies when this tool should be used: when callers need share links scoped to a document ID. It provides clear context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives like list_share_links for global listing or get_share_link for a single link.

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