list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, and the schema parameter behavior is explained ('only views in this schema are returned'). However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, permissions, pagination, or what happens when no views exist—though the output schema mitigates some return-format ambiguity.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose and then lists only the parameter meanings. Every sentence adds useful information, and nothing is redundant or padded. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 low complexity, an output schema, and complete parameter descriptions, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the absence of sibling-usage guidance and explicit read-only confirmation, but the core facts needed to invoke the tool correctly are present.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates for all three parameters. It explains that workspace is a name or GUID, item is a warehouse or SQL endpoint name or GUID, and schema is an optional filter controlling which views are returned. This is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List SQL views on a warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_view, drop_view, create_view, and list_tables by naming the object type and the target resource.

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 implies its use case—when you need to enumerate SQL views—but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as list_tables, get_view, or drop_view. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, so the agent must infer the tool's role from its name and wording.

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