files_remote_share

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without detailing permissions, side effects, or error conditions. For a sharing operation, critical details are missing.

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 extremely brief but sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness. A single sentence is insufficient to convey the tool's full purpose and usage, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to elaborate on return values, parameter roles, or behavioral context. With 0% schema coverage and no additional info, the description is not complete enough for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation for the three parameters (channels, external_id, file). The agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of these parameters from the description alone.

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 'Share a remote file into a channel' uses a specific verb ('Share'), a specific resource ('remote file'), and a target ('channel'), clearly distinguishing it from similar tools like files_remote_add (adds but doesn't share) and files_upload (uploads local).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_remote_add or files_share_legacy. It does not mention prerequisites or contextual cues for selection.

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