list_share_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well by clarifying output semantics: opens counts human page opens, use_count is the raw max_uses counter and not a read metric, and opens is null on plans without viewer numbers. This prevents misinterpretation of returned data. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but listing is a non-mutating operation and the key caveats are surfaced.

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 core statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides necessary caveats about opens and use_count. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the key return field semantics and the null condition. It could be more complete by stating what share link fields are returned or mentioning pagination/ordering, but for a simple one-parameter list operation the essential information is present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it adds only modest context by saying the share links are 'on a page.' This implies id_or_slug refers to a page, but the description does not explicitly explain the id_or_slug format or that it is required. For a single self-named parameter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 resource (share links on a page) and distinguishes the tool's focus by highlighting attributed opens and last-opened time. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' though the tool name supplies that action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource and metric focus are clear enough.

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 tool should be used when you need share links with opens and last-opened metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like create_share_link, revoke_share_link, or set_expiry. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, so an agent must infer the usage context.

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