get_view_v1_user_views__clerk_id___slug__get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions access control for drafts vs. published views. It does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the view doesn't exist), or any side effects. The minimal behavioral detail is insufficient for a safe agent invocation.

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 to the point, with the purpose stated first. It consists of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and access rules. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (get by identifier, no output schema) and the existence of sibling tools, the description covers the essential purpose and access constraints. However, it lacks details on return values, authentication requirements, and error handling. For a minimal tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. The description adds that the view is identified by (clerk_id, slug), but does not explain what clerk_id or slug represent, acceptable formats, or constraints. Beyond implying they are identifiers, the description adds little meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific user view' identified by clerk_id and slug. It also distinguishes between drafts and published views, giving clarity on access. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get view endpoints like get_view_v1_views__name__get, but the identifier makes it distinct enough.

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 a usage condition: 'Drafts are owner-only. Published views are public.' This implies when the tool can be used based on view visibility. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, such as other view retrieval endpoints.

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