Go to saved view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns its keep by disclosing exactly what state changes: window/story switch and applied layer combination, scale, MVO, pen set, graphic overrides and zoom. It also notes that Project Map/Layout Book items open without view settings. Lacks caveats like auth or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before enumerating applied settings, and the trailing sentences cover input sourcing and return shape. The first sentence is dense with a long settings list, but every element is relevant and nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, input sourcing, and even the return shape ({view, method, window}). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the GUID/name forms, matching order, and ambiguity behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description's value-add is the pointer to list_views for sourcing the identifier, plus confirmation that either a GUID or name is accepted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Opens a saved view of the View Map') and anchors it with a concrete analogy ('exactly like double-clicking it in the Navigator'). Clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_views and get_view_settings by describing the opening action and its applied settings.

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?

Gives a clear usage context and a cross-reference ('see list_views include ["viewMap"]') that tells the agent how to obtain the input first, plus a behavioral distinction for Project Map / Layout Book items. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative (e.g. open_view) and the condition that would select it.

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