xaf_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the critical fact that most views are generated from business classes and not present in C# or .xafml files, preventing the agent from mistakenly reading files. It also reveals that omitting the view returns a screen list, a behavioral trait not visible from the schema.

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 three sentences that front-load the core definition, then add an important caveat, then provide usage context. Every sentence contributes new information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a complete picture: what data the tool returns (controllers, actions, match reasons), how to invoke it (with or without a view), a critical gotcha about generated views, and concrete use cases. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and call the tool.

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 schema documents both parameters (view, project) with 100% coverage, including default null and case-insensitivity. The description reinforces the view parameter's behavior by explaining the effect of omitting it (list all screens) but adds no new meaning for the project parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without major additional semantic value.

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 clearly defines the tool as showing what controllers and actions are loaded for a screen, with a specific resource (view) and detailed output (why each matches, which actions appear). It also explains the no-view invocation to list all application screens, distinguishing it from sibling tools like xaf_controller or xaf_model. This goes beyond a vague verb to explain the exact output scope.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use before changing a controller, adding an action, or answering what a screen does.' It also explains the no-view pattern to list screens. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it's strong but not fully exhaustive.

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