GetCDSView

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but says nothing about authorization requirements, which system/version is read, response size limits, or whether inactive versions are returned.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'metadata' comprises versus source code, the relationship to GetCDSViewContents, and any system/permission context. It leaves all of that unspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters (view_name, include_annotations) are already documented with defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('CDS view') with two outputs (source code and metadata). However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling GetCDSViewContents, nor from ExportCDSViewToFile, leaving an agent unable to tell which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., active system, required authorizations), and no mention of the alternative tools (GetCDSViewContents, ExportCDSViewToFile) that an agent must choose between.

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