nxc_shares

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a high-level goal. It does not mention authentication complexity, potential for destructive actions (e.g., put operations), rate limits, or output format. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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, but it is under-specified. It wastes no words, but it fails to provide necessary detail about actions or parameters, making it insufficiently informative for an agent.

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 12 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema or annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the 'action' enum, file operations, or result format, leaving critical gaps for correct tool usage.

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 covers all 12 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the tool's general functionality.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: enumerating and interacting with SMB shares. It uses specific verbs ('enumerate', 'interact') and a specific resource ('SMB shares'), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like nxc_smb that handle broader SMB operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nxc_smb for general SMB). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusivity, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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