list_views

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden. It indicates read-only behavior ('list') and mentions accessibility ('accessible to the API user'), but does not describe pagination behavior beyond parameter names or potential limits.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words, and each sentence adds distinct 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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, usage guidance, and alternatives. However, it lacks details on pagination defaults or return format, making it slightly incomplete.

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 schema covers both parameters (page, per_page) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 saved ticket views' with a parenthetical explaining what views are. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_view, create_view, and delete_view by focusing on listing all accessible views.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this to discover view IDs, then call Zendesk's endpoint for actual tickets. It also mentions the workaround using search filters since execute_view is not exposed.

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