gsa_highest_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether the result is deterministic. This is a minimal hint, not sufficient transparency.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is not front-loaded with actionable information and leaves the agent with unresolved ambiguity about the key parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description is incomplete for a tool with one required, undocumented parameter and no annotations: it lacks usage context, parameter meaning, and behavioral details, making correct invocation difficult.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'option'. The description only repeats the parameter name without explaining what an option is, what values are valid, or how it affects the result. No meaningful semantics are added beyond the schema.

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 (Return) and resource (highest numbered view), but the qualifier 'for option' is undefined, leaving the exact scope ambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling gsa_highest_case or other view-related tools, so an agent cannot fully rely on it for selection.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsa_view_exist, gsa_view_name, or gsa_view_ref_from_name. There is no context on prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving selection to inference.

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