gsa_view_exist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what 'ref' identifies, what 'option' values are accepted, whether the call fails or simply returns false for a missing view, or whether it requires an open model.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, but the terseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is front-loaded but far too thin for a two-required-parameter tool.

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 the boolean return need not be explained, but for a tool with two mandatory and undocumented parameters and no annotations the description is materially incomplete. An agent cannot reliably construct a call from it.

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 two required parameters, and the description adds no meaning for either. 'ref' (presumably a view reference number) and 'option' (presumably a lookup mode) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to supply valid values.

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 specific verb ('Return whether') and resource ('view exists'), so the agent knows this is a boolean existence predicate on a view. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling existence/query tools such as gsa_case_exist and gsa_output_data_exist.

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 on when to use this check versus alternatives. The sibling set contains several existence predicates (gsa_case_exist, gsa_output_data_exist, gsa_output_is_dataref) and view-access helpers (gsa_view_name, gsa_view_ref_from_name), yet none are mentioned or contrasted.

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