list_views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the output fields. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, but the annotations alleviate the need for extensive disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates all essential information without any superfluous words, achieving high efficiency.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately states the output includes IDs, names, and types. It could mention if the debug parameter affects output, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool with strong annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'views', the scope 'in a specific table', and the returned fields 'IDs, names, and types', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 when to use the tool (to get a list of views) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, such as using get_view for a single view or create_view for creation.

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