list_shared_with_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read operation and an authentication requirement, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any response limitations. This is adequate for a simple list read but adds little beyond the operation name.

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 verb and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema, the description covers the essential resource and scope. It does not explicitly contrast with list_my_lists, which would help disambiguation, but the 'shared with' phrasing largely carries that meaning.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. The zero-parameter baseline applies; no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('lists shared with the authenticated account'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_lists (owned lists) and get_public_list (public lists).

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 the intended context: use when you need to see lists others have shared with the authenticated account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is left to inference rather than explicit routing.

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