infomaniak_get_drive_share_link

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'returns null when no share link exists.' This helps the agent anticipate an edge case not visible in the schema or annotations. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only get with output schema, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key null-return behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only single-resource tool with full input schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and an important return-value edge case. There are no significant gaps that would impede tool selection or invocation.

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 already provides full 100% coverage for both parameters, including drive_id discovery via infomaniak_list_drives. The description only reinforces the file/folder scope and adds no additional parameter syntax, format, or relationship details, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the share-link settings for one kDrive file or folder.' The word 'one' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_drive_share_links, while the read-only phrasing differentiates it from create/update/remove share-link tools.

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 clearly implies use for retrieving share-link settings for a single file or folder, and 'Read-only' signals this is a safe lookup. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the singular scoping provides clear context.

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