list_share_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully enumerates the return fields (createdAt/expiresAt/revokedAt and an active flag), which tells the agent revoked and expired links are still listed and discriminating via the active flag. It does not cover auth requirements, pagination, ordering, or whether results are scoped when projectId is omitted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the field list, with the 'audit half' framing as a compact second sentence. No filler; only the missing operand (required vs optional) keeps it from being fully tight.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key return-shape detail but omits requiredness of projectId, pagination behavior, and any auth preconditions. Adequate but not fully sufficient given the zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage.

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 0% and the schema marks projectId as optional, so the description is the only source of meaning. 'for a project' conveys that projectId scopes the listing, but it does not clarify whether the parameter is required or what a project-less call returns, leaving ambiguity the agent must guess at.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list share tokens (share links) minted for a project. It also names the returned fields and frames itself as the read/audit counterpart to create_share_link and revoke_share_link, so an agent can place it in the share-link trio without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'The audit half of the share loop' implies this is the inspection/audit step rather than the minting or revoking step, which is useful orientation. However, it never explicitly states when to call this versus create_share_link or revoke_share_link, nor any prerequisites such as needing a projectId.

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