get_view_source

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

Discloses key behaviors: returns SELECT statement or error message, automatically uppercases view name. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention read-only nature or permission requirements, but the given info is adequate.

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?

Two sentences: first for purpose, second for parameter details and behavior. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all essential aspects for a simple retrieval tool: parameter sourcing, automatic transformation, and output format. No output schema needed as return type is implied. Minor gap: no mention of error format or pagination (not relevant here).

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema: explains database comes from list_databases, view from list_objects with type='views', and that view is automatically uppercased. With 0% schema coverage, this is essential and well-done.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'source SQL of a view'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_procedure_source by specifying 'view' and referencing specific sources (list_databases, list_objects with type='views').

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?

Provides explicit guidance on where to obtain parameter values (list_databases for database, list_objects for view) and notes automatic uppercasing. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, e.g., 'Use this for views; for procedures use get_procedure_source'.

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