public_shared_links

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it walks folders, applies caps, reports 'capped' truncation, and returns a specific structure including error object. It does not mention rate limits or performance, but details are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, parameter documentation in a list, and a coverage note. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (folders_scanned, capped, count, public_shared_links with subfields). It could detail data types, but coverage note and failure handling are present. Siblings are unrelated, so no comparison needed.

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?

All three parameters lack schema descriptions, but the tool description provides clear semantics: root_folder_id with default '0', max_folders with cap and truncation flag, max_depth with recursion depth. This fully compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 it lists items with an open shared link ('anyone with the link'), specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'open shared links'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'external_collaborators' and 'top_external_sharers', which address different security aspects.

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 implies use for finding high-exposure shared links, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to. It provides limitations (co-admin access, caps) but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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