list_shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does communicate a read-only listing operation and authenticated-user scoping, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state non-mutation, pagination, or output behavior, leaving meaningful transparency gaps.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core verb and resource are front-loaded. Every word carries meaning.

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 simple listing nature, no required parameters, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. Yet it offers no usage guidance, no clarification of what constitutes a 'share,' and no indication of how output behaves, so an agent may still be uncertain when selecting among listing siblings.

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 already fully documents all three parameters, including the output enum/default and the onlyItems/onlyVaults booleans. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('shares'), and further scopes it to shares accessible to the current authenticated user. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vaults, list_items, and share_item.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The only context is the user scope; no sibling alternatives are named.

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