external_data_share_list

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the scope qualifier 'all ... for an item,' but does not disclose pagination, response shape, permission requirements, or other behavioral details that would add value beyond the 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?

One short sentence contains a clear verb, object, and scope with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with only two schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could further clarify what an 'item' means or what the returned share list contains, but those are minor given the low complexity.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents workspaceId and itemId. The tool description adds no extra meaning to either parameter, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('external data shares') with an explicit scope ('for an item'), making the operation identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling operations like external_data_share_get by saying 'all', and from create/revoke by the list verb.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over siblings such as external_data_share_get, create, or revoke. There are no prerequisite conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing mentioned, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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