thincms_get_share_buttons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully informs the agent about the return format (JSON with enabled and platforms) and lists possible platforms. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like caching, error states, or side effects, which are not expected for a GET operation.

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 highly concise with only three sentences, all front-loaded with essential information: the action, resource, and return structure. Every sentence contributes value 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 that this is a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and platforms. However, it does not explicitly state that the configuration is fetched from the active site (unless overridden by siteId), which is context present in the schema but not integrated into the main description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The schema descriptions for siteId and confirmProductionWrite are already detailed and self-explanatory.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('share button configuration'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'thincms_update_share_buttons' which performs a write operation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling update tool implies a read vs. write distinction, there is no direct 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' advice, leaving room for ambiguity.

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