list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic function and the optional schema filter. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, how the default server/database is resolved, whether results are paginated, or what fields are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and scope and includes the optional filter. There is zero fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple, but with no output schema, the description does not hint at the shape of the response (e.g., just view names or full definitions). It also omits default server/database behavior. While the description is adequate for a basic call, the missing return-format context leaves moderate uncertainty for an agent.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (schema, server, database) with 100% coverage. The description mentions the schema filter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, this earns the 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 states a specific verb (List), a specific resource (views), and a scope (in a database), with an optional filter (by schema). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables and list_schemas, so an agent can tell at a glance what this tool returns.

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 usage: call this when you need to retrieve views. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., list_tables) or any exclusions. The context is clear but not prescriptive, so it earns a middle score.

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