list_r2_share_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it only restates the action and resource. It does not disclose pagination, output structure, authentication requirements, or side effects. 'List' weakly implies read-only behavior, but little else is communicated.

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 sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of return format, pagination, or what 'resources' actually represents. For an agent, this is minimally sufficient at best, but it leaves too much ambiguity for confident tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema documents both required parameters (share_id and account_id) with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable when the schema already covers them.

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 ('List') and names the resource ('resources in an R2 share'), so an agent can tell it is a read/list operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like get_r2_share or list_r2_share_recipients, and it does not clarify what 'resources' means in this context.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as list_r2_buckets or get_r2_share. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues beyond the tool name, so the agent must infer usage.

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