fflShareFile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it shares via ffl, respects ALLOWED_BASE_DIR, and can return a QR code. The IMPORTANT note about presenting the link is helpful. However, it does not detail what happens to the files after sharing (e.g., cleanup, session lifecycle) or potential side effects, which could be improved.

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 long due to many parameters, but it is well-structured with a clear initial purpose, an important usage note, and a list of parameters. While verbose, every part serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise by grouping related parameters, but it remains functional.

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 complexity (29 parameters, 1 required), the description covers most parameters in detail, though it misses a few (port, invite, pause, enableReporting) that are in the schema. There is an output schema but it is not shown, so return values are not explained. Overall, it provides strong context but has minor gaps.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the tool description exhaustively explains each parameter with meaning, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'exclude: Exclude files matching glob or regex patterns, comma-separated'). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, aiding correct usage.

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 'Share a local file or folder using ffl.' The verb 'share' and resource 'local file or folder' are specific. It also mentions respecting ALLOWED_BASE_DIR, providing context. This distinguishes it from siblings like fflShareText and fflShareBase64, which handle other data types.

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 usage for local file/folder sharing, and the sibling list provides alternatives for other types. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The context is clear enough but without outright exclusions.

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