list_views

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning a string but does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, or performance implications. The included 'ctx' parameter is not in the input schema, causing inconsistency.

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 short and uses a structured 'Args/Returns' format. However, it includes redundant technical formatting and a parameter (ctx) that does not appear in the schema, which could confuse an agent.

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?

Missing important details: the return format of the string, progress reporting behavior (despite mentioning ctx), and how to handle large results. The discrepancy between description params and schema further reduces 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (low), so the description must compensate. The description provides meaning for the 'schema' parameter ('Schema name (default: public)'), adding semantic value beyond the schema's default and type. However, it includes an undocumented 'ctx' parameter, slightly reducing clarity.

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 explicitly states 'List all views in a schema,' clearly identifying the resource (views) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_indexes and get_table_structure by specifying it is for views.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with siblings. The description only states what it does, not the context for use.

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