invariance_saved_view_list

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

No contradiction with annotations. The readOnlyHint already signals safety, and the description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (name, source, spec, viz, visibility), but it does not address pagination, ordering, or scope of the listing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element contributes meaning: the operation, resource, and returned fields.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource and the returned fields. However, it leaves the meaning of terms like 'spec' and 'viz' implicit, and with no output schema, slightly more detail could help.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The parenthetical field list refers to return contents rather than parameters, and with no parameters there is little for the description to add.

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' and the resource 'saved query views', and enumerates the fields returned. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like invariance_saved_view_get by its list semantics, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invariance_saved_view_get, nor any exclusions or context. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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