get_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the active view is marked, which is a helpful output behavior. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, which would warrant a 5.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('List the views'). Every word adds value—the view types and marking of active view are relevant and non-redundant.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what is returned (views with ids, active marked) and covers the essential context. It is complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('views in the model') and enumerates view types ('plans, sections, 3D, schedules'), making it unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_active_view (which sets) and reset_view (which resets).

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 context is clear: this tool retrieves a list of views with IDs and marks the active view. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use, the purpose strongly implies it is for reading view information. No exclusions or conflicting guidance are present.

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