perspective_list_views

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read-only', which is minimal. It does not mention authorization, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. Insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (two short phrases), which is efficient but at the expense of substance. It could be more informative without being verbose, e.g., by clarifying 'bridge plane'.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, but the description fails to explain the 'bridge plane' concept or how the output relates to it. The description is not complete enough for effective tool selection and use.

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 single parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no context beyond the schema's property name. The agent receives no additional format, source, or constraint information, so the description adds no value here.

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 'Read-only, bridge plane' is vague. It hints at no side effects but doesn't state that the tool lists views in a perspective project. Relies heavily on the tool name for meaning. Sibling tools include perspective_get_view, but no distinction is made.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like perspective_get_view or perspective_delete_view. The context of 'bridge plane' is not explained, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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