read_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does convey that this is a read of ephemeral current state and names the returned fields, which is useful signal. It says nothing about permissions, project scoping, or what happens when no view exists, leaving behavioral 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key concept ('what the user is looking at now') before listing fields. Efficient, though the trailing field enumeration could arguably be pushed to an output schema.

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 single-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the inline field list partially substitutes for a return spec. However, nothing is said about the projectId parameter or the scope/format of the response, so it is only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter projectId has no description in either schema or prose. The description adds no meaning about what projectId selects or whether it is optional, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') plus a clearly scoped resource ('what the user is looking at now'), and enumerates the view fields returned (view_mode, selected_iteration, expanded_nodes, etc.). This makes it distinguishable from non-view siblings like get_tree or list_nodes, though it never names the mutating counterpart set_view explicitly.

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 phrase 'now' implies reading current UI state, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over set_view, get_tree, or list_nodes, and no exclusions or prerequisites given. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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