List share links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior by disclosing that URLs are masked, that items carry a state enum with active/expired/revoked values, and that pagination is cursor-based via nextCursor. Nothing here contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 sentences, zero filler, with scope and ordering front-loaded and the alternative routing in the second sentence. The return-shape enumeration is long but dense with useful field-level detail that no output schema provides.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields, the cursor, and the total is exactly the right compensation, and the masking caveat prevents misuse of the url field. The only gap is that the available filters are never surfaced in prose, though the schema covers them fully.

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 limit, active, clipId, cursor, and projectId are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that — it never mentions the filtering options — so it sits at the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 states the resource ('Your share links') and the ordering ('newest first'), which pins down this as a personal-scope list operation distinct from get_media_links. It never uses an explicit list verb, but the name plus scope wording is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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?

It names a sibling alternative and the exact condition that selects it: 'Use get_media_links for a full URL.' It gives no guidance on when this tool should not be used (e.g., filtering for a specific project vs. browsing all), so it falls short of explicit when/when-not coverage.

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