get_view

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. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state the safety profile or describe what fields/details are returned in the response. As a simple retrieval operation with a single parameter, the lack of behavioral nuance is somewhat acceptable, but there's no mention of error cases (e.g., invalid view_id) or response structure.

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 appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. It could arguably mention return values but for a one-parameter get operation, this level of brevity is well-suited.

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?

For a straightforward single-parameter get operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It correctly identifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't clarify what 'details' means, whether the returned view includes tasks or metadata, or the relationship to the broader view/workspace hierarchy. Given low complexity, it's adequate but lacks clarifying depth.

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% for the single parameter (view_id), and the schema itself documents it as 'The view ID'. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Since the baseline is 3 for high coverage and the description doesn't contradict or enhance the schema, a 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 'Get details of a specific view' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (view), clearly indicating it retrieves detailed information about a single view. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_list_views, get_workspace_views, get_space_views, and get_folder_views which retrieve collections, though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of needing a view_id from prior queries, no differentiation from get_view_tasks or the various list-views tools, and no exclusions or context about relationship to parent objects (workspace/space/folder views).

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