get_all_shared_views

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the required `shared_views:manage` permission and the fixed sort order (most recently updated first). It omits pagination behavior and whether the result set is bounded, which matters for a list endpoint returning an unknown number of views.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with scope and ordering before the permission note. The trailing 'GET /api/v1/shared-views' and 'Tags: Views' lines are pure metadata repetition that add no decision value.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, ordering, exclusions, and auth, but leaves the agent unable to predict the return shape or whether results are paginated. A sentence on what a shared view contains or how many are returned would close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is fully self-describing and the description correctly adds nothing about parameters. One minor gap: it doesn't say whether any implicit filters (team scope) apply despite the absence of inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get every shared view) and pins the scope precisely: views visible to all agents or one team, personal views excluded, ordered by most recent update. It's clearly distinct from the singular sibling get_shared_view, though it never names any alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: you learn this lists shared (not personal) views, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_shared_view for a single view, or how it differs from the conversation/draft list siblings. The permission prerequisite is the only hard gating information.

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