share_strategy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: privacy guard regex scan, redaction error, rounding percentages, read-only nature, no signing/broadcast. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 clear separation of purpose, usage, privacy guard, and version notes. While slightly lengthy, every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it efficient.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, privacy concerns, and lack of output schema), the description adequately covers all necessary context: what the output is (jsonString), how it's used, privacy protections, rounding behavior, and version limitations. It feels complete.

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 100% with all 9 parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying required address groups, free-form fields subject to redaction, and the role of 'name'. It provides useful context beyond 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 explicitly states it generates a shareable, anonymized JSON snapshot of portfolio structure with clear exclusions (no addresses, USD values, hashes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_strategy by explaining the workflow.

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 says 'Use this when the user wants to share their setup' and explains the recipient workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but provides clear context.

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