get_shared_link

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only, which discloses a key behavioral trait. It also describes the return content (JSON with details, permissions, expiry, assets). Since annotations are absent, this carries the full burden, and the description is sufficient for a simple retrieval operation.

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 concise, consisting of three efficient sentences plus an 'Args' and 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and reads naturally without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return content and parameter source, and no additional information (error handling, pagination) is expected for such a straightforward operation.

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 description provides explicit meaning for the single parameter, 'The shared link's UUID (from list_shared_links),' which adds value beyond the schema (only indicates type string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a shared link, including specific properties like permissions, expiry, and linked assets. It distinguishes from siblings like create_shared_link, update_shared_link, and list_shared_links by emphasizing inspection of a specific link.

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 says 'Use this to inspect a specific link's configuration,' providing clear context for when to use it. It also mentions the link_id comes from list_shared_links, guiding the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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