seed_get_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention potential errors (e.g., view not found) or permission requirements. For a simple get, this is acceptable 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 a single, concise sentence that is directly to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is necessary. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It clearly indicates the purpose and the target object. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior in edge cases, which could be useful but is not essential for a basic get operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'one view', which aligns with the single parameter viewName, but it does not explicitly explain that viewName is the identifier of the view to retrieve. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, but the description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Seed metadata for one view'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like seed_list_views (which lists views) and seed_create_view/seed_update_view/seed_delete_views (which modify 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 usage is implied: to retrieve metadata for a single view, one should use this tool. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention when not to use it. The clarity is sufficient for a simple get operation, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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