List Named Views

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read, so the bar is low, but the description adds little beyond it: the returned fields duplicate the output schema, and 'No refusals' is unexplained jargon. It never clarifies ordering, count, or scope of the listing.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loads the resource and returned fields. The trailing fragment 'Pack: settings · lean: no.' is opaque internal metadata that does not earn its place and disrupts the structure.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and readOnlyHint set, only a modest description is required. It is minimally adequate, but it omits any mention of ordering or the relationship to view_named_save/restore, leaving a gap an agent might need.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument listing operation with no filtering.

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 states a specific resource ('every VIEW table entry') and the fields returned (centre, height, width), so an agent can tell it retrieves named-view definitions. However, it uses AutoCAD jargon ('VIEW table entry') and never differentiates itself from siblings like view_named_restore or view_zoom_extents.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus view_named_restore, view_named_save, or other view tools. 'No refusals' is not usage guidance an agent can act on. The agent is left to infer purpose purely from the resource name.

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