list_views

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It only states 'list', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose whether both parameters are required, what happens with invalid schema names, or the output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It succinctly captures the primary action without redundancy.

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?

Although this is a simple listing tool, the description omits essential context. The presence of a 'database' parameter is unexplained, the requiredness of the schema parameter is ambiguous (required parameters are 0, yet the description says 'in a schema'), and without an output schema, the return format is unknown. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('Schema name' and 'Database name'), so the description's contribution is minimal. It adds that views are listed within a schema, but does not clarify the relationship between schema and database parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 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 'List all views in a schema' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (views), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or list_schemas. However, the phrase 'in a schema' is slightly ambiguous given the presence of a 'database' parameter, leaving the exact scope unclear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tables or list_schemas. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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