List views in a schema

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds the source table SYS.VIEWS and confirms support for prefix filtering and pagination, but doesn't disclose any unexpected behaviors like default ordering or system view filters. Additional context like result formatting is absent, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 core action, with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and capabilities.

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?

The description, combined with detailed parameter schemas and safety annotations, provides sufficient context for using this straightforward list tool. It doesn't include explicit return structure, but for a simple listing operation the results are intuitive. An explicit alternative note would make it a 5.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and defaults. The description mentions prefix filtering and pagination, which maps to prefix, limit, and offset, but adds no new semantics beyond what's in the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool lists views in a schema from SYS.VIEWS, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_describe_view or hana_list_tables. The verb 'List' and resource 'views' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes the tool's purpose for listing views in a schema, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using hana_list_calculation_views for calculation views or hana_describe_view for a single view's details.

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