get_space_views

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. However, it only states that it retrieves views without revealing behavior such as whether it returns paginated results, whether the returned views include nested task data, permission requirements (who can call this), or ordering/filtering behavior. For a read operation with an absent annotation layer, this is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words or redundancy. It's appropriately minimal for a simple parameter-free-to-describe read operation.

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 read tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, a bit more detail about the return payload shape (what fields each view contains) or behavior could improve completeness. The low complexity keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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%, so the single parameter space_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional param meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 space' has a specific verb (get) + resource (views) + scope (space). It's clear and distinguishes from siblings like get_workspace_views, get_folder_views, and get_list_views by specifying the space scope. Notably, there's no 'views' concept described beyond this tool, though siblings include get_view and get_space.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving views in a space context but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion of alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_workspace_views, get_folder_views, or get_list_views might be more appropriate in other contexts, nor does it contrast this tool against them.

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