List Zendesk Views

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-agent scoping tied to per-user auth, counts served from Zendesk's cache with up to ~1 hour lag, and the '(count updating)' sentinel state. These are exactly the gotchas an agent needs and are not derivable from structured fields.

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 and keeps to one dense paragraph where each clause (examples, counts, scoping, staleness, hand-off) carries information. Slightly long and clause-heavy, but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return shape (views each with a ticket count) and the caveat about stale counts. Combined with the annotated safety profile and a fully covered 2-param schema, nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so cursor and page_size are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of pagination or page-size tradeoffs), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (list Zendesk views) and immediately grounds it with concrete examples ('Unassigned tickets', 'My open tickets') and the payload (views with current ticket counts). It also names the sibling get_view_tickets as the follow-up tool, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly signals the context of use ('tell at a glance where the workload sits') and hands off explicitly to get_view_tickets for drilling into tickets. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a mention of list_tickets/search_tickets as alternatives, so it stops short of the top band.

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