list_shared_links

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses 'Read-only' nature, which is a key behavioral trait. Also describes return format (JSON with total count and links array with fields). Lacks details on authentication, rate limits, etc., but for a simple list operation, this is sufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a return description. Every sentence adds value. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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 no parameters and a simple list operation, the description fully covers purpose, behavior (read-only), and output format. Context signals indicate output schema exists, but description already details return fields. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not add parameter info because none are needed. Schema coverage is 100%, so no gaps to compensate.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'shared links (public gallery URLs)'. Specifies use cases: see what's shared or find link ID for updates/deletion. Distinguishes sufficiently from siblings like get_shared_link, create_shared_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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to see currently shared links or find link ID for updates/deletion. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of list vs get is implied.

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