open_share_url

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

The description discloses the read-only nature, a key behavioral trait, and details the output: resolved path, metadata, and folder listing. It does not mention potential errors, connection requirements, or invalid URLs, but it carries the transparency burden well given the absence of annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and then adds specific details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains that the tool returns item metadata and lists contents for folders. It also covers path resolution. Missing are details on error handling and the role of connection, but overall it is fairly complete for a small 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 lists share_url and connection, but the description only implicitly references share_url as the resource. No explanation is given for connection or its default 'auto', leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone, which is insufficient given 0% schema coverage.

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 function: opening an Alfresco or eDoCat DMS share URL read-only, resolving its path, returning metadata, and listing folder contents. This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like read_document or get_item_info, which operate on already-resolved items.

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 clear context: use this tool when you have a DMS share URL to open and explore. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like search_items or read_document for cases when the path is already known.

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