get_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply restates the operation without disclosing that it is read-only, what the return value contains, or any error behavior. This adds minimal transparency beyond the name.

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, concise sentence containing the resource and key qualifier. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it errs on the side of terse rather than informative.

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 many sibling tools sharing the 'share' concept, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'share' is, what fields are returned, or how it relates to tools like get_share_status or list_shares. With no output schema, this lack of context hampers correct tool selection.

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 100% and the id parameter is already described. The description's 'by id' adds little beyond the schema, satisfying the baseline but not enriching the parameter meaning.

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 retrieves a share by its id, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_share_status or get_share_html, so it loses the fifth point for lack of explicit distinction.

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 usage is implied: call this tool with a share id to get the share object. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., get_share_status) or when not to use it.

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