perspective_validate_view

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

The description discloses two key behavioral traits: read-only and local execution. However, without annotations, it fails to mention other aspects like whether it modifies state or what happens on validation failure, leaving some gaps.

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 very short to the point, using only six words. It is concise but could be more informative; the brevity is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description should explicitly state the tool's purpose ('validates a view') and how the parameter is used. It falls short, leaving the agent to infer the core functionality from the name alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description, the agent receives no guidance on the 'view_json' parameter. The description does not explain what the parameter represents or how to format it.

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 says 'Read-only, local (no gateway call)', which implies validation but does not explicitly state that the tool validates a perspective view. The name suggests the purpose, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 indicates a local, read-only operation, suggesting it is suitable when no gateway call is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or what alternatives exist.

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