Read columns of the view

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: the per-column payload shape (name, caption, visible, width, toggleable), that hidden columns are included, the ordering guarantee, and the specific failure mode with its redirection. The 'Read-only, no undo step' line reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Reads the columns of the list...') before the enumeration and the exception. It is dense and slightly long, but each clause carries a distinct fact (view coverage, column fields, ordering handoff, failure case) with no filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, payload semantics, ordering, failure modes, and the apply handoff. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description's detailed account of the returned field structure adds meaning about the result payload but nothing parameter-related is required.

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 precise verb and resource ('Reads the columns of the list on the left of the visible view') and enumerates exactly which view types carry such a list (Gantt, variance, resource/capacity) versus those that do not. An agent can distinguish it from rillsoft_view_columns_apply and the state/view siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit failure condition ('in the network diagram and the bar network diagram there is no such list and the call fails') and routes the agent to the alternative tool (rillsoft_view_state_apply). It also implies the downstream pairing with rillsoft_view_columns_apply. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over rillsoft_view_state_get, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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