list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It gives substantial detail on returned data and coordinate mapping, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the named view is missing, or whether any drawing state must be active.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that packs in the relevant return fields without filler. It is concise, though the lack of a leading verb makes it less front-loaded than it could be.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description does useful work by describing view fields, annotation fields, and the model-to-sheet mapping. However, it omits parameter format, read-only behavior, error conditions, and whether it operates on the active sheet/document, leaving gaps for a drawing-inspection tool.

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 for the single 'view' parameter is 0%, and the description only says '(or one)' without explaining whether the value is a name, id, index, or other identifier. It implies omission returns all views, but the parameter semantics remain underspecified.

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 clearly identifies the resource as sheet views and enumerates the view and annotation details returned, so an agent can tell it is a retrieval/list tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with add_view or edit_view, but the purpose is otherwise clear.

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?

It only hints at optional filtering by saying 'each view (or one).' There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when to use add_view/edit_view instead, or any prerequisites such as needing an active drawing.

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