list_project_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only list operation and the view definition adds useful domain context. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or behavior for invalid/missing project_id, which leaves some ambiguity for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each contributing useful information: what the tool does, what a view is, and how to resolve the required parameter. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, domain definition, required input, and a fallback for obtaining that input. It does not describe the exact return shape or ordering, but 'Get all saved views' plus the view definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents project_id as a required UUID string with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explicitly stating the parameter is a uuid and explaining how to obtain project_id from a readable identifier using get_projects.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all saved views for a project.' It also defines what a view is, and the word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling get_view tool, which is about a single view. Purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve all saved views for a project. It also provides a practical decision rule for obtaining project_id when only a readable identifier is available, pointing to get_projects. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives like get_view, so it does not reach the top score.

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