List saved views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it 'lists' views. It doesn't mention pagination semantics (cursor/limit), even though the schema exposes pagination parameters. With annotations covering read-only safety, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds usable but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb 'List.' The sentence is efficient and readable. It could arguably be scoring 5, but it omits the pagination/surface nuance that a slightly longer description could have handled without bloat.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters including pagination (cursor/limit) and an enum surface field, yet the description is a minimal single clause. With no output schema, the description must convey return shape expectations, which it doesn't. However, for a straightforward list operation backed by readOnlyHint annotations, the current level is minimum viable but leaves the agent unsure about pagination behavior, default surface, and what fields returned views contain.

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 50%, with project_id documented in the schema ('Identifier of the bisibility project to operate on; list_projects returns valid project ids'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With 4 parameters and only half documented in the schema, the description doesn't compensate for the surface or limit/cursor semantics gap, landing at baseline 3.

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+resource: 'List saved keyword views for a project.' It distinguishes from siblings like create_saved_view (create vs list) and delete_saved_view (delete vs list). However, it's not fully specific about scope (whether it lists views across surfaces or defaults to a surface) and doesn't differentiate from the many other 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?

The description implies the tool is used to enumerate saved views for a project but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention the surface parameter that distinguishes keyword views from competitor views, nor does it point to create_saved_view or delete_saved_view as related lifecycle operations. The required project_id context ('for a project') provides some usage grounding.

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