List Shared Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the project context requirement and specifies the output fields (access level, expiry), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and output, with the prerequisite stated efficiently. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return info (share links, access level, expiry) and the requirement for project context. It lacks pagination or error details, but these are minor for such a tool.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for testRunId ('Public Id (Guid) of the test run'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 clearly states the action (list share links) and the resource (a test run), specifying the output includes access level and expiry. It is distinguishable from sibling list_shared_* tools by the 'for a test run' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context,' which is a useful usage condition. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_shared_schemas or list_shared_responses, nor any exclusions.

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