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

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only annotations: returns the caller’s own views plus everyone’s shared ones, newest first, and config is stored as the app wrote it. The guest restriction is also a useful behavioral constraint.

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 compact and front-loaded around the core listing behavior, with no wasted sentences. The clauses about config immutability and guest access each add useful scope or constraints.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly. It covers scope, ordering, visibility, config handling, and guest restrictions.

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 schema already documents projectId and its omission behavior. The description repeats the workspace-wide meaning but does not add syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list saved views. It defines what a saved view is (named filter/group/sort settings across task list, board, table, calendar, or Gantt), which distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings.

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?

Clearly explains the projectId condition: provide one project’s views, or omit it for workspace-wide views. It also states that guests cannot list views. It lacks explicit alternatives, but there is no close sibling that lists saved views, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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