List favourite views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only, no undo step' largely restates structured data. The description does add some context by noting the visible-now state and the storage location of the entries, but adds no new safety, permission, or side-effect disclosure beyond 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, with the navigation hint second. The trailing 'Read-only, no undo step' is redundant against the annotations, which is the only wasted clause.

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 detail return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and the sibling handoff for selection. Nothing essential is missing for a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, though it could note the create/delete counterparts.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics and instead describes what the call surfaces.

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 (Reads) and resource (favourite views of the project) and enumerates the salient returned content: name, origin view, storage location, and which is currently visible. An agent can distinguish this from rillsoft_view_favorite_create/delete/select without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to rillsoft_view_favorite_select for the switching action, which is the main adjacent operation. It does not state when not to use the tool or cover the create/delete siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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