get_folder_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description is a terse one-liner that doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether pagination applies, what information each view includes, or what the return structure looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. While minimal, there's nothing extraneous to remove.

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?

This is a simple 1-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. It's a list-fetching operation whose return shape (view objects, fields, pagination) is entirely unspecified. While simple, the total absence of behavioral or return information leaves the agent guessing about the response format. More context on the return structure or view definition would improve completeness.

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 100% with a single parameter (folder_id) described as 'The folder ID'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, just implying folder scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the only parameter and the description's contribution is marginal.

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 'Get all views for a folder' uses a specific verb (Get) plus resource (views) and scope (folder), clearly distinguishing from siblings like get_space_views, get_workspace_views, get_list_views, and get_view. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't elaborate on details beyond the folder requirement.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_view, get_space_views, get_workspace_views, or get_view_tasks. The tool is for a folder-scoped view listing, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of related alternatives.

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