List custom perspectives

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the conditional behavior that includeRules expands results with filter rules and aggregation, which is useful. It does not contradict annotations, and it adds modest value beyond them.

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 with the core action first and the optional behavior second. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 enumeration tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description plus structured fields is complete. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without missing prerequisites or hidden behavior.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear structured description. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema states, especially for fresh and format. The includeRules mention is helpful but largely duplicates the schema text.

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 and resource: 'List all custom perspectives defined in OmniFocus.' It also names the optional behavior around includeRules, which adds precision. It is distinct from task-focused siblings like get_custom_perspective_tasks, but it does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is the obvious way to enumerate custom perspectives, and the sentence about includeRules gives a direct usage condition. However, it does not name alternatives such as get_custom_perspective_tasks or update_perspective_rules, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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