get_r2_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get details', implying a read operation, but says nothing about required permissions, response shape, error behavior, or whether the call has side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, though it would benefit from more substance in other dimensions.

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 two-parameter getter with fully documented parameters, this is adequate, but the absence of an output schema and the vague 'details' wording leave the agent without information about what the response contains or any account-scoping caveats. It covers the basics but not the full context.

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% and both parameters have straightforward descriptions ('The share ID' and 'The account ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get') and names a specific resource ('R2 share'), which helps distinguish it from collection-oriented siblings like list_r2_share_recipients and list_r2_share_resources. It is slightly generic because 'details' does not enumerate what fields are returned, but it is not tautological or misleading.

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 about when to call this tool versus alternatives. It neither states that it is for a single share lookup by ID nor mentions that list_r2_share_* tools should be used for enumerating shares, recipients, or resources.

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