get_space_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation with specific return fields (id, name, type). However, it does not disclose potential issues like permissions required, error handling, or behavior when the space has no views. This is a moderate gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the usage purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no 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?

For a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lists (views on a space), what fields it returns (id, name, type), and its purpose. It is missing details on edge cases or error conditions, but these are less critical for such a tool.

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% for the single parameter, but the tool description adds contextual value by explaining the purpose of obtaining a view_id. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 lists all views on a space, returning id, name, and type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_folder_views or get_list_views by specifying 'on a Space'. It also explicitly states its use case: to find a view_id scoped to a space.

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 says 'Use to find a view_id scoped to a Space,' which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though sibling tool names imply alternatives for folder/list views.

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