fb_list_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the session/database-resolution behavior and the interactive prompt fallback, which is useful. But it does not state that this is a read-only listing operation, nor anything about result format, pagination, or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the edge-case instruction second. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key ambiguity (which database) and the interactive fallback. Minor gaps remain on whether the result is a plain name list and whether an active session is required.

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 0% and the single parameter db_alias is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: "do banco especificado (ou ativo na sessão)" explains both the parameter's meaning and the default fallback when it is omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Lista todas as views de usuário") scoped to a database, which cleanly separates it from siblings like fb_list_tables and fb_list_procedures by resource type. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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?

It gives a concrete conditional rule: when multiple databases exist and none is active in the session, prompt the user first. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over adjacent listing tools or what prerequisites exist, so usage is only implied beyond that one edge case.

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