gsa_view_ref_from_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about side effects, permissions, error behavior for unknown names, or what the returned reference is valid for. The read-only lookup nature is only weakly implied by 'Return'.

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 with no filler and the key concept front-loaded, which is structurally fine. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with two opaque required parameters.

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 described. That said, the definition leaves the 'option' parameter, the usage context, and the lookup's failure behavior entirely unaddressed, which is not enough for an agent to invoke this reliably among many similarly named gsa_view_* siblings.

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 both required parameters. The description only echoes 'name' and never explains what 'option' selects, whether it is a mode/flag or an entity type, or what values are legal. Two required parameters with zero semantic explanation is a serious gap.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('view reference') derived from a 'name', so the basic operation is inferable. However, 'view reference' is domain jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish it from near-name siblings such as gsa_view_name, gsa_view_exist, or gsa_highest_view. It is vague rather than tautological, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer a sibling like gsa_view_name or gsa_view_exist, or any precondition (e.g. that the view must already exist). The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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