List share links

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: share links are publicly reachable without login and the list is security-relevant. It does not cover pagination or return shape, but what it adds goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler: the first states scope and key fields, the second provides a security warning. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description gives the resource, scope, output fields, and security relevance. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear list framing and pagination-related parameters, though explicit mention of a paginated response would make it 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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description mentions output fields (slug, target document, expiry) but does not add input-semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource (share links), the scope (every share link on the instance), and the key returned identifiers (slug, target document, expiry). It goes beyond the title and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_document_share_links by emphasizing the instance-wide scope.

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 usage context—instance-wide listing and security-relevant audit use—but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It is more than no guidance, but lacks the explicit routing that would earn a 4 or 5.

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