files_share_legacy

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

No annotations are provided. The description only labels the tool as 'legacy undocumented', which hints at unstable or unsupported behavior but fails to disclose specifics like required permissions, side effects (e.g., notification impacts), or error handling.

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 short with no wasted words, but this conciseness comes at the expense of providing necessary detail. It meets minimal conciseness standards but sacrifices informational value.

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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains, how parameters should be formatted, or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 input schema defines two required string parameters (file and channel) without any description. The description does not add meaning to these parameters, leaving their format or purpose entirely unclear. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Share a file to a channel', which is specific and distinct from other file-related siblings such as files_upload, files_remote_share, etc. The qualifier 'legacy undocumented' further differentiates it as a deprecated variant.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'legacy undocumented' implies it might be deprecated, but does not direct the agent to a preferred replacement or state conditions for use.

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