get_view_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial/case-insensitive matching, support for nameless views, and default behavior. This is transparent for a read-only retrieval tool, though it doesn't detail potential errors or read-only nature explicitly.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: core purpose, expanded context, and usage variant. No redundant or missing information, perfectly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and special cases. Nothing essential 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?

The only parameter 'name' is explained in detail: it's a string for tab name, partial match, case-insensitive, and omitting returns active view. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema which has no description and only type default.

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 tool returns the full content of an open tab, with details on name matching (partial, case-insensitive) and handling of nameless views, distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_content.

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?

Guidance is provided on when to omit name for active view. It also mentions applicability to Terminus tabs and nameless views, implicitly guiding away from get_file_content. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is clear enough.

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