remote_session_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core behavior: creating a shareable URL and allowing others to view or control the session in real-time. However, it omits security implications (e.g., control permissions allow command execution) and the share's persistence/expiration behavior, which are important for an agent to assess safety before invoking.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Share a terminal session'), and every phrase adds value—no filler, no redundant restating of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has a simple purpose and a rich schema (100% coverage), though no output schema. The description implies the return value (a shareable URL) and the use case, but doesn't address edge cases like the session needing to be active or the share's lifetime, leaving a minor gap in an otherwise adequate 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%—all four parameters have descriptions, so the description need not explain them. The description aligns with the permissions parameter by mentioning 'view (or control)' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Share') and resource ('terminal session'), and distinguishes it from siblings by describing the outcome: a shareable URL for real-time view/control. This is distinct from unshare, list, and update tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use ('for collaboration') and specifies the mechanism (URL for viewing/controlling). It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from share-management siblings like remote_session_unshare and remote_share_update.

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