drive_share_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying authentication requirement ('Requires authentication'), detailing the return structure ('Returns {isShared: boolean, members: [{email, role, addedAt?}], shareUrl?}'), and reiterating the read-only nature. This context complements the annotations well without contradiction.

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 five sentences, each adding meaningful information: purpose, authentication, return format, usage guidance, and a prohibition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could be slightly more compact, it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, its read-only nature, and the return format. No gaps are present.

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 full coverage for the single 'path' parameter with a detailed description. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Following the baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 'Return the current sharing state of a Proton Drive path.' This is a specific verb+resource. Among sibling tools like drive_share_invite and drive_share_revoke, it uniquely identifies itself as the read-only status checker, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Always call this before drive_share_invite (to avoid duplicate invitations) and before drive_share_revoke (to confirm the member email).' It also states what not to do: 'Do not call this to modify sharing — it is read-only.' This provides comprehensive usage guidelines.

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