List views and viewpoints

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

The annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so this dimension has a lower bar. The description adds valuable context by specifying the output shapes and the localization caveat ('Names are localized (Russian)'), which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs a lot of information. It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the parenthetical lists slightly reduce readability.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the key fields present in the returned objects. It also covers the primary use case and the localization detail, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the resource categories but does not add syntax or format details for parameters like limit, nameContains, or types beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and enumerates exactly which resource categories are returned (stories, viewpoints, layouts, View Map). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_navigator_tree and get_stories by defining its own scope.

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?

It explicitly names the downstream tools (open_view, go_to_view) and the exact identifier formats they expect (database/name for open_view, guid for go_to_view). This is a clear 'when to use this' signal that an agent can act upon directly.

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