get_view

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation, transparency about side effects is lacking.

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 (3 words), which is efficient but lacks any structure or additional context. While brevity is valued, this may be too terse to be fully helpful, especially for an agent seeking to understand the tool's purpose.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., view settings, fields). Without that, the agent cannot anticipate the response format. Additionally, with three required IDs, the description does not explain how to obtain them, limiting completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (base_id, table_id, view_id), so the schema already conveys their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description states 'Get view configuration', which clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (view configuration). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'list_views', which also deals with views, potentially causing confusion about whether this returns a single view's details or a list.

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 get_view versus alternatives like list_views or update_view. The description lacks any contextual hints about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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