get_shared_folder_privileges

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It correctly indicates a read operation, but does not disclose potential errors, return format, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but could be improved.

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?

Very concise: a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be structured to include a brief note on the return type or privilege categories. Still, it is appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 only one parameter, read-only behavior, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and the target resource. Minor gaps like return format details are acceptable at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter description. The tool description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves user and group access privileges for a specific shared folder. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_privileges (which is user-specific) and get_group (which retrieves group details).

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?

No explicit when or when-not guidance. However, the parameter description hints at using list_shared_folders to obtain the UUID, implying a prerequisite step. This provides minimal context but lacks clear differentiation from alternatives.

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