security_views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely repeats 'Read-only' rather than adding to it. It does add some value by implying the return contains creator, columns, and grants, but the ambiguous clause about reading 'table' leaves the actual behavioral scope (permissions required, whether results are filtered) unclear.

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 single sentence is cluttered with UI-form jargon, stray quoting, and double-backtick markup, and the core purpose is buried behind form names. The 'Read-only' tacked on the end reads as an afterthought.

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, describing the return contents (creator, columns, grants) is genuinely useful, and read-only status is covered. But the ambiguity around the optional 'table' parameter and the absence of any database-scope explanation leave real gaps for a two-parameter listing 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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. The 'database' parameter is never explained, and the parenthetical mentioning 'table' is too vague to indicate whether it filters to views that reference a given table.

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 does convey that it lists database views along with their creator, columns, and grants, which is a specific verb+resource. However, the parenthetical 'those that read ``table`` when given' is opaque, and framing it around a UI form ('Grant columns (view)', 'Drop view…') muddies rather than sharpens what the tool returns compared to siblings like security_tables or security_columns.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as security_tables, security_columns, or security_who. The reference to a specific form implies context but does not tell an agent under what conditions this tool should be selected.

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