get_view_v1_views__name__get

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

The description mentions the response includes alias definitions, column projections, and lookup configurations, providing some behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects or authentication requirements beyond the '(public)' label. Without annotations, this is moderate but not fully transparent.

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 concise with three short sentences. Key information is front-loaded (purpose). However, there is minor redundancy between the title line and the first sentence. Overall efficient.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers what the response includes (aliases, projections, lookups) and notes it is public. However, it lacks constraints, expected input format, and any reference to output structure or pagination. Not fully complete but adequate for a simple GET.

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 'name' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not explain the 'name' parameter—its format, meaning, or examples. Schema coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, making it difficult for an agent to know how to populate the parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'View', and specifies it returns detailed configuration including aliases, projections, and lookups. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_view_v1_user_views__clerk_id___slug__get or list_views_v1_views_get, leaving ambiguity on which view retrieval tool to use.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions it is 'public', implying it may require less authentication, but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. No reference to sibling tools or conditions.

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