list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It states the tool lists paths, which is inherently non-destructive, but does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, authorization needs, or error handling. An output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second describes the parameter. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key verb and noun.

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 listing tool with one parameter, the description covers the primary function. However, it lacks details on return value format (though output schema exists) and error behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'project_path' with type string. The description adds meaning by specifying it as 'Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export', which goes beyond the schema's type-only definition. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 states 'List all Perspective view paths in an Ignition project', specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'Perspective view paths', and the context 'Ignition project'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_view' which retrieves a specific view.

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 when needing to list view paths but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_view'. No guidance on exclusion or prerequisites is provided.

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