quipu_share

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that output is bounded, that there is no server-local output path (the payload is returned rather than written), and that internal-only export exemptions are rejected over this transport. "Read-only" merely restates readOnlyHint=true, but the rest is genuine added behavior. It still doesn't say what happens when the bound is exceeded.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the output nature and followed by constraints. No padding, though the phrasing is jargon-heavy and the scope instruction reads as an afterthought rather than being grouped with parameter guidance.

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 tool with 8 parameters, a nested required object, no output schema, and zero schema-level documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent can understand the general shape of the output but not how to construct a valid scope or what the seven optional parameters do.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters including a nested scope object with a four-value enum. The description adds only "Pass the exact scope," leaving shapes, queries, max_bytes, no_shapes, turtle_view, parent_share, and alignments_turtle entirely unexplained, and never clarifying which scope kinds are valid.

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 names a specific verb and artifact: "Produce a bounded portable share payload, including canonical manifest and member bytes." That is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling quipu_export, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance; the only hints are the indirect "Pass the exact scope" and "Internal-only export exemptions are not accepted over this transport," which implies quipu_export handles that case but never says so. An agent cannot tell from this text when to pick quipu_share over quipu_export or quipu_import.

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