get_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves view settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of the returned data (e.g., whether it includes all view types or metadata). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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's moderate complexity (retrieving view settings with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. For a read operation without annotations, more context would be helpful to ensure proper use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('app_id' and 'preview') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'kintoneアプリの一覧（ビュー）の設定を取得します' (retrieves the settings/list of views for a Kintone app). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieve/get) and the resource 'kintoneアプリの一覧（ビュー）の設定' (Kintone app views/settings). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_form_fields' or 'get_form_layout', which also retrieve app configurations but for different components.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an app ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_reports' or 'update_views'. Usage is implied only through the parameter 'app_id', but no explicit context is given.

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