get_saved_view

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds a useful detail about the response content ('full details including filter rules'), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or authentication requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides modest additional value, justifying a 3.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get a specific saved view by ID') and appends the relevant detail about the response ('full details including filter rules'), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple get-by-id operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what input is needed, and what the response contains. The read-only annotation covers safety, and no output schema is present, but the description's mention of 'full details including filter rules' gives the agent adequate expectations. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0% (the 'id' property has no description), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that 'id' is the identifier of the saved view to retrieve ('by ID'), which gives meaning beyond the bare schema type of 'number'. This effectively explains the parameter's role, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('saved view'), and the scoping condition ('by ID'), plus an indication of the response content ('full details including filter rules'). This distinguishes it from list_saved_views and other sibling tools that operate on saved 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 phrase 'specific saved view by ID' implicitly communicates that this tool is for retrieving one saved view when you have its identifier, contrasting with list_saved_views for enumerating them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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