get_share

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but 'Get details' only restates the read operation. It says nothing about return contents, authentication/authorization, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified but still efficiently written.

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 get-by-ID tool this is near the minimum viable: parameters are fully covered by the schema. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't clarify what 'details' will be returned or how this differs from get_share_url.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about how share_id relates to object_type/object_id.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific share'), making the core operation clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like get_share_url or list_shares beyond the word 'specific'.

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 about when to call get_share versus alternatives such as get_share_url or list_shares is provided. The description also doesn't explain that object_type and object_id scope the share lookup or any prerequisites.

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