list_shares

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. For a simple list operation this is a notable gap, though the schema covers parameters.

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 that delivers the essential purpose and key distinction without any wasted words. It is well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (list with pagination), and the description is adequate for basic use. However, there is no output schema, so the description could have mentioned what the response contains (e.g., array of share objects) or any default pagination behavior. It provides just enough context but leaves some details unspecified.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The baseline is 3, and since the description adds no additional parameter context, this score 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'shares', and provides a specific definition ('one-off transfers of an asset/group to a user') that distinguishes it from the sibling tool for public share links. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related tools.

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 explicitly notes it is 'distinct from public share_links', providing an exclusion that helps the agent choose this tool over the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools, so guidance is good but not fully elaborated.

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