views_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects (e.g., the view is displayed immediately to the user), permissions required, error conditions, or response behavior. The description is essentially silent on the tool's behavior beyond the literal action of opening.

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?

While the description is concise (one sentence), it is underspecified to the point of being unhelpful. True conciseness would convey the essential information in a compact form; this description is merely short but lacks substance. It front-loads nothing of value.

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 complexity of the tool (nested view object, required trigger_id) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, the expected structure of the view payload, or the typical usage flow. The tool's context is entirely absent.

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 input schema covers both parameters (view and trigger_id) with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor degrades the understanding of parameter semantics.

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 is extremely brief: 'Open a view for a user.' It conveys the basic verb and resource but fails to define what a 'view' is in this context (e.g., a modal surface) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like views_publish, views_push, or views_update. The purpose is vague and leaves too much ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternative views_* tools, nor does it specify prerequisites (like requiring a trigger_id from a user interaction), exclusions, or context. This omission leaves the agent without critical decision-making information.

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