get_collection_shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation but does not mention required permissions, whether shares include users, groups, or URLs, or whether any filtering or pagination applies. The agent is left to infer the operational context.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object clearly. For a tool with one required parameter, this length is appropriate and every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It does not describe what a share record contains, how results are returned, or how this relates to sibling tools like list_shares or get_share. The low complexity of the input does not compensate for the missing return-value and domain 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?

The input schema already documents collection_id as 'The collection UUID' with full format constraints, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond echoing the idea of a specific collection, which is the expected baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'shares for a specific collection'. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_asset_shares, which target assets rather than collections, and list_shares, which is not scoped to a specific collection.

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 offers no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_shares or get_asset_shares. The phrase 'for a specific collection' implies a scoping condition, but it does not state what separates this tool from closely related share-related tools.

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