list_share_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states only 'active' share links, implying filtering, but doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, authorization, or the meaning of 'active'. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns every character.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't describe the return format, but the tool's name and siblings make it clear it returns a list. The term 'active' could be more explicit, but overall it's adequate.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and the schema already covers 100% of parameters (none).

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 'List all active share links.' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('share links') with a scope ('active'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_share_link and revoke_share_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 implies usage: call to get all active share links. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. Sibling tools exist for creating/revoking, but the description doesn't mention them.

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