access_management.get_all_dashboard_shares

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive call; the description adds the important pagination behavior and the row-per-share output convention. It avoids any side-effect claims, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth, which are minor for a zero-parameter read.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds pagination and return-format details. It is slightly repetitive ('including user and group details' and 'collects the corresponding user and group details'), but every part contributes useful information.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the result contract—and it does so explicitly, including the one-row-per-share rule and pagination behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke and interpret 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers the input side. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead, matching the zero-parameter baseline.

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-resource pair ('Retrieve all dashboard shares') and clarifies the scope with 'all' plus the user/group detail enrichment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashboard_get_dashboard_share, which targets a single share.

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 makes the tool's use case clear: when you need every dashboard share with associated user/group details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'all' framing gives clear context for selection.

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