Share Status

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and the description adds real value on top: it enumerates the returned fields and discloses the non-obvious quirk that view_level is deliberately omitted because the read API always reports "full". It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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-loads the purpose and the accepted identifier, then gives the return shape and the view_level caveat. The NOTE is slightly verbose but each clause carries information the agent would otherwise lack.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is close to complete: purpose, input shape, and behavioral caveat are all covered. The main omission is the type/mutual-exclusivity semantics of the identifier, though 'name or ID' largely addresses it.

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 0% and the single 'notebook' property is an undescribed string, but the description compensates by stating it 'Accepts a notebook name or ID' — a meaningful constraint the schema does not convey.

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+resource ('Get a notebook's sharing status') and tells the agent what the tool returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like share_set_access and share_set_user, which mutate sharing rather than read it.

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?

Gives clear routing context: it explains that view_level cannot be read here and directs the agent to share_set_access for that value. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement versus the other share_* tools, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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