get_workspace_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. It does not state whether views are returned at a flat level, whether filtering applies, what happens for empty workspaces, permissions required, or pagination limits. For a list retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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 the purpose and scope. Zero wasted words. While it is minimal, it front-loads the core information clearly, though it could be more informative about usage without becoming verbose.

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 single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema. The description adequately identifies what is retrieved and at what level. However, without annotations or output schema, the description could benefit from noting that this returns Everything-level (top-level) views specifically rather than views nested within spaces or folders.

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 coverage is 100%, so the sole parameter team_id is fully described in the schema ('The workspace/team ID'). The description adds the 'Everything level' context which clarifies the scope of what is being retrieved. With one fully-documented parameter and a single tool parameter at baseline 3, the description's scope qualifier slightly elevates this.

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 workspace (Everything level)' uses a specific verb+resource combination and adds the scope qualifier '(Everything level)' which distinguishes it from the sibling get_space_views and get_folder_views. The purpose is clear and identifies the resource at the workspace level versus other nested levels.

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 the tool retrieves views at the workspace scope, and the '(Everything level)' qualifier hints at the distinction from nested view tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus get_space_views or get_folder_views, leaving the differentiation to be inferred from the sibling names rather than clearly explained.

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