get_view_phantoms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It reveals that the tool is read-oriented ('Return') and notes a default key, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second adding a key default. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format but does not. It also omits any mention of whether 'name' is required or optional, and lacks error handling or usage constraints, making it incomplete for a tool with two optional-looking parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'key' (defaults to 'pybackup') but not for 'name' beyond restating 'by name'. This fails to fully explain both parameters' purpose and 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 the tool returns phantom HTML and extracted text from a view by name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_view_content' by specifically mentioning 'phantoms', but does not explicitly differentiate from other get_ tools.

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 description provides a default behavior for the 'key' parameter when omitted, which is helpful. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_view_content), leaving the agent to infer context.

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