create_view

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. It mentions the tool creates a view but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a view ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new view') and lists key parameters without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the result (e.g., what's returned), error handling, or dependencies like needing an existing list. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has high coverage (83%). It mentions 'specified columns, row limit, and optional CAML filter', aligning with parameters 'columns', 'rowLimit', and 'query', but doesn't explain semantics like what 'CAML filter' means or how 'columns' relate to the list. With schema doing most documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new view') and the resource ('for a list or library'), with specific attributes mentioned (columns, row limit, CAML filter). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_views' (read) and 'update_view' (modify), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is well-defined but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing list), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'create_list' or 'update_view'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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