drive_share_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds beyond that: 'Requires authentication' and specifies the exact return shape ('Returns {isShared: boolean, members: [{email, role, addedAt?}], shareUrl?}'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Multiple sentences but each serves a purpose: first sentence states purpose, second notes auth requirement and return structure, third gives usage guidelines, fourth is a final reminder. Front-loaded with key info, no wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides sufficient return structure details. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, it covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, return type, and constraints. The agent has everything needed to use this tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'path'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute remote Drive path to inspect (must start with "/")'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Return the current sharing state of a Proton Drive path' – a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('sharing state of a Proton Drive path'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_share_invite and drive_share_revoke by stating it is read-only.

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 'Always call this before drive_share_invite ... and before drive_share_revoke', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also says 'Do not call this to modify sharing – it is read-only', which tells when not to use. This is comprehensive and helpful for an AI agent.

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