List Shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only non-revoked, non-expired shares are returned and that a Builder+ tier is required, which is meaningful context beyond a bare list operation. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or response shape, but those are minor for a simple list tool.

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 a single compact sentence followed by a short tier requirement. Every word adds value: it defines the resource, the active-status filter, the account scope, and the access requirement. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and access tier. It leaves return-format and pagination details to inference, which is a minor gap but not a blocker for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 is one optional parameter, secretName, and the schema already documents it fully with 'Optional: filter shares by secret name,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all active share links on the account.' The qualifier 'active (non-revoked, non-expired)' defines the exact subset and distinguishes this from share_secret, revoke_share, and get_shared_secret. It is also clearly different from list_secrets because it targets shares, not secrets.

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 gives a clear use case: list active share links for the account, and it adds a prerequisite by noting the Builder+ tier requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource scope is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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