list_views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and potential breadth of results are known. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no views exist. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that states the core purpose without any fluff. The action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 simple list operation with pagination parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not specify what fields are returned, whether sorting or filtering is available, or how to interpret the response, but these are often implicit for list tools. Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects that it is complete enough for basic use but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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%, with both 'page' and 'per_page' already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra context about parameter usage, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. As a result, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'List views in Zendesk' clearly states a specific verb (list), resource (views), and scope (Zendesk). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_view (which retrieves a single view) and create_view/update_view/delete_view (which mutate views), leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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. It does not mention that get_view is for retrieving a single view, nor does it explain any filtering or sorting capabilities that might differentiate it from other list operations. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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