SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists view names but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'list'), what format the output takes, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List available view names for query_view discovery.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and context.

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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, as there's no risk of missing parameter documentation.

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: 'List available view names for query_view discovery.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('available view names'), and indicates the intended use case ('for query_view discovery'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling alternatives like 'query_view' or 'export_markdown_views', which might also involve 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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'for query_view discovery', suggesting this tool should be used to discover available views before using 'query_view'. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'export_markdown_views' or 'render_markdown_views'), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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