strata_view_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only 'List' operation and what is returned ('views and their resolved physical tables'), which is moderately transparent. However, it does not disclose details like whether any model filter applies, permissions needed, or behavior when the optional model is omitted.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description leaves the model parameter unexplained and gives no usage context. For a definition that must help an agent select and invoke the tool correctly, it is under-specified.

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 has one parameter, model, with no description. The description's parenthetical '(model_filter, views, count)' appears to describe output fields, not the model parameter, so it provides no meaningful guidance for how to use the model argument. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('views and their resolved physical tables'), and hints at the returned fields. It is specific enough to be distinguished from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like strata_explore_deps or strata_navigate. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer appropriate usage.

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