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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries extra burden. It discloses that output is user-scoped ('the tools a Query may run for this user') and that it takes no arguments, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe output size or pagination, but for a read-only reference lookup this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the enumeration of returned content and closing with the actionable call instruction. Dense but each clause maps to real content; the parenthetical component list is long but earns its place by previewing output.

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?

With no output schema, the description must preview the return surface, and it does so in reasonable detail (components, arguments, Query/Mutation/Action behavior, patch rules, runnable tools). An agent knows what it will get and why to call it before writing view source.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments,' leaving no ambiguity that no input is expected.

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 names the specific resource (components and builtins a view can use) and enumerates its contents: layout, charts, tables, Markdown, post cards, images, live cards, plus Query/Mutation/Action semantics, edit rules, and runnable tools. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the tools it precedes (generate_view, update_view).

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?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Call it before writing any view source or view patch, including the source for generate_view or update_view.' This tells the agent exactly when this reference tool should be consulted relative to the generation/update siblings, leaving nothing to inference.

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