list_network_shares_ignoring_sysvol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ignoring SYSVOL' which hints at filtering behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it's safe/destructive, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just one phrase, which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's arguably too terse, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It earns a 4 for zero waste but loses points for potential insufficiency.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, behavioral traits, or output. For a tool in a security/enumeration context with many siblings, more context is needed to guide proper use.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the 'domain' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. With 1 required parameter and no coverage, the description fails to compensate, adding zero semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'network share(s)', which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from potential siblings like 'list_all_network_shares' or explain what 'ignoring SYSVOL' means operationally. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many enumeration tools, but the description doesn't explain why one would choose this over others (e.g., for security auditing vs. general listing). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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