get_view

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

No annotations provided. The description only states it returns view details, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions needed, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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 very short and structured with args and returns. No fluff, but could include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, with no annotations, the description lacks context about what 'View details' entails, and no behavioral or usage guidance is provided.

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%. The description repeats parameter names (project_id, view_id) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema types. It does not explain where to obtain these IDs or their constraints.

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 'Get details of a specific view' with required parameters project_id and view_id, distinguishing it from siblings like list_views, create_view, delete_view, update_view.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage by requiring IDs, but does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., list_views) should be used first.

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