mdshare

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the admin access requirement (a permission constraint) and clarifies conditional parameter behavior based on document location. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and output details; the second adds critical usage constraints. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool's moderate complexity (listing with admin requirements), rich annotations (safety profile covered), and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It lacks output format details (no output schema exists), but covers purpose, constraints, and parameter conditions adequately for a read-only tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minor context about the 'key' parameter's optionality condition, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List all share links') and resource ('for a document'), including the scope of information returned (status, permission, label). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_link' (creates) and 'revoke_link' (modifies) by focusing on listing existing links.

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 provides clear context for when to use it ('Requires admin access') and clarifies a conditional parameter rule ('key' is optional if document is local). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'get_admin_url' for different admin tasks.

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