get_available_main_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of revealing safe, read-only behavior. It does so by using the term 'get' and 'canonical names', indicating a non-mutating query. The context about being accepted by view control tools adds useful behavioral context, though it does not detail return structure; the presence of an output schema alleviates that need.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and intended integration with view control tools.

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 has no parameters, a clear purpose, and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It specifies the domain (canonical Ableton view names) and the context (used by view control tools), making it complete for its complexity.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty with 100% coverage by default, and the description does not introduce ambiguity. This aligns with the baseline for parameter-less tools.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving 'canonical Ableton view names' and explicitly states their purpose ('accepted by view control tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling view manipulation tools like show_view or hide_view, which act on views rather than listing valid names.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: before calling view control tools to obtain valid names. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand it is a lookup helper that complements the view-related sibling tools.

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