List analysis options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by spelling out the content of the result (groupings, presentations, secondary views, value sets, current view state) and noting it can be scoped; the 'read-only, no undo step' clause largely restates the annotations rather than adding to 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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the return content and then the usage instruction. Efficient and free of filler, though the first sentence is long and packs a lot of enumeration.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, yet it still frames what the listing contains and when to use it. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the schema description already documents the single 'view' parameter, its enum values, and the rationale for scoping. The description only reinforces the same point ('pass view to get only the one view you need'), which is useful routing but adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Reports/Lists) and resource (supported analysis options: views, groupings, presentations, secondary views) and enumerates exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming rillsoft_view_state_apply as the natural consumer of this information.

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?

Explicitly says to call this before rillsoft_view_state_apply to learn which combinations exist, and gives a concrete alternative path ('pass view to get only the one view you need'). Both the when-to-use and the when/what-else are stated.

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