List Shared Responses

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that each entry includes the id and rowVersion needed for subsequent update or link operations. This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent understand the return shape.

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 with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, the scope semantics are explained compactly, and the return value hint earns its place by being directly actionable.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains the scope choices and the key return fields. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of id and rowVersion supplies the essential information an agent needs to chain follow-up calls.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that 'project' means the current project's library and 'org' means the organization-wide library, enriching the otherwise terse schema description.

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 and resource: 'List the reusable responses of the shared library.' It clearly indicates the tool's purpose and scope options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_shared_reports or list_shared_schemas, though the noun 'responses' provides implicit differentiation.

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 gives clear context on when to use each scope value: 'project' reads the current project's library and 'org' the organization-wide library. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives like get_shared_response, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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