list_share_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and optional filters, but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, that it requires authentication tokens (account_token, session_token), or any rate limits or side effects. The description offers no behavioral context beyond the bare action, which is insufficient for a tool that may involve access control.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and states the optional filter in a compact way. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the authentication tokens, the return format (e.g., list of share link objects), or any constraints. An agent would not know how to successfully invoke this tool without further schema details or external knowledge. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for any of the five parameters (coverage 0%), so the description must explain them. It mentions filtering by 'library/path', which loosely maps to library_name and path, but does not mention repo_id, account_token, or session_token. These token parameters are likely essential for authentication, and the description gives no hint of their purpose or format. Thus the description only partially clarifies two of five parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('share links'), and indicates optional filtering by library/path. It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from any sibling tool (the only related sibling is create_share_link, which is a different action), so it misses the chance to clarify scope such as 'all share links for the current account'. This is clear but not maximally specific.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context in which listing share links is appropriate, or exclusions. Since there are no directly competing list tools among siblings, the absence is less critical, but the description still fails to give any situational advice, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is needed.

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