get_list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether views include all types (custom views, default views), whether the result is paginated, ordering, depth of view objects returned, or any rate-limit/auth considerations. For a retrieval tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. Appropriate length for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool. Not an under-specification issue, simply concise.

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-param retrieval tool with no output schema. The description is minimal but the tool itself is straightforward. However, given the large number of sibling view tools (workspace/space/folder/list/view), the description could better clarify the scope hierarchy and what 'views' means in this context to aid correct selection and usage. Slightly under-specified for its sibling context.

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%, and the single parameter list_id is described as 'The list ID'. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage grants a baseline of 3, and there's some implicit meaning that the list_id selects which list's views to retrieve. Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Description 'Get all views for a list' uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (views) with scope (list). However, among siblings there are get_workspace_views, get_space_views, get_folder_views, and get_view, so it's reasonably distinct as a list-scoped variant but doesn't explicitly clarify whether these are list view configurations vs data views. Purpose is clear but minimally differentiating.

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 vs the many sibling view tools (get_workspace_views, get_space_views, get_folder_views, get_view, get_view_tasks). No mention of what a 'view' means here or how it differs from get_view. Since there are multiple view-scoped siblings, the lack of differentiation guidance is a notable gap.

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