list_dependency_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that default output is summaries and that verbose provides 'raw node and edge data,' which is meaningful. It omits pagination or permission details, but for a listing tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then compactly captures three output modes. No filler words or redundant 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what output variants exist but not their exact structure (e.g., summary fields, node/edge formats). It is sufficient for tool selection, though slightly more detail on return shape would make it fully complete.

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%, yet the description explains the semantic effect of includeTasks and verbose booleans beyond their bare definitions. The required projectId is self-evident from the 'in a project' scope, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'dependency planning views' and scope 'in a project.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dependency_view by implying collection-level listing rather than single-view retrieval.

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?

It explicitly states the default behavior (summaries) and describes the two optional modes (includeTasks, verbose), giving clear context on how to tailor the output. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_dependency_view, but the collection-vs-single distinction is evident from sibling names.

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