share_lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of disclosing behavior. It details the case-insensitive substring search, the behavior for no matches (>20, exactly one, multiple), the preservation of existing shares, and the final confirmation using specific words. This is thorough and leaves little ambiguity.

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 appropriately sized for the complexity. It starts with a concise main statement, then uses paragraph blocks to explain the search/selection logic and the confirmation step. Each sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy could be trimmed. Overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the entire user interaction from search to confirmation, explains all parameter behaviors, and hints at the output (though the output schema handles that). No gaps remain.

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%, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so excellently: for each parameter (lab_path, search, selection, confirm) it gives a precise, context-rich explanation including examples ('all', 'accept'/'yes'). This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 tool's action: 'Share a lab with one or more users, added to whoever it's already shared with.' The verb 'share' and resource 'lab with users' are specific and distinctive. Among sibling tools, this is the only sharing-related operation, so it is well-differentiated.

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 extensive guidance on how to use the tool, detailing the search, selection, and confirmation flow. It explains edge cases like empty search, 'all' shortcut, multiple matches, and that existing shares are preserved. While there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tools to mention, the usage context is very clear and actionable.

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