get_share_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a preview ('would be sent' and '(preview)'), which implies no email is actually sent. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any state is changed, and it lacks details about permissions or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Render' and includes all essential information without any wasted words. It is appropriately 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality sufficiently. It explains what the tool does, the resource it operates on, and that it is a preview. Missing details like return format or error cases are not critical for this simple preview 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?

The input schema only says 'ID of the resource', which is generic. The description clarifies that 'this share' refers to the share whose email body is being rendered, thereby giving the 'id' parameter a concrete meaning. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and a specific resource ('the HTML email body that would be sent for this share'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_share or list_shares. The added '(preview)' clarifies the operation is a rendering, not an actual send, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used to preview the HTML email body for a share, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied rather than directly stated.

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