infomaniak_list_drive_share_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety info. It does add that the tool lists links 'visible to the account', which clarifies scope, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination or whether results are limited to the drive specified by drive_id. Moderate value beyond the 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?

A two-sentence description that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is purposeful: 'all', 'visible', 'account', 'admin exposure review', and 'Read-only'. No redundancy or filler.

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 list operation with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention that results are scoped to the given drive_id or note pagination, but these gaps are minor relative to the overall clarity.

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 schema fully documents drive_id (100% coverage) with a clear description ('kDrive id. Discover via infomaniak_list_drives.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('all kDrive share links'), and the scope ('visible to the account'). It also gives a specific use case ('admin exposure review'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drive_share_link (singular) and create/update/remove.

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 phrase 'for admin exposure review' provides clear context for when this tool should be used (security/audit enumeration). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the listing vs. management distinction is apparent from sibling names and the singular/pural difference.

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