schema_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 behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a listing/read operation and documents the special 'all' value behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, case sensitivity, or whether system schemas are excluded, which are useful but not critical for a simple list tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List views') and immediately followed by the essential parameter guidance. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the special 'all' case. It does not discuss pagination or return format, but the output schema likely covers that. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage alternatives, but that's already partially addressed by sibling tool names.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that `schema_name` identifies the schema to list views and that the special value 'all' covers all user schemas. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare name and default value, though it stops short of detailing accepted formats or edge cases.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('views') and ties it to the schema context, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like schema_list_tables and schema_list_columns. The phrase 'in the given schema' immediately clarifies the primary parameter's role.

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 (when you need views in a schema) and gives a concrete usage tip for the `schema_name` parameter ('all' for all user schemas). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the resource-specific wording make the context clear.

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