zda_get_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches data and returns full definition, but fails to mention that it's read-only, what happens on invalid ID, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple fetch, this is a notable gap.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative; no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the core purpose. 'Full definition' is somewhat vague, but for a get-by-ID tool, it communicates the value. Could be slightly improved by specifying the response includes the view's conditions, columns, etc.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Numeric object ID'). The tool description adds 'including its full definition', which hints at response richness but doesn't directly enhance the parameter meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('single Zendesk view'), and the key ('by ID'), explicitly noting the output includes full definition. This distinguishes it from siblings like zda_list_views (list only) and zda_create_view (creation).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose implies usage when a specific view's full details are needed, but lacks comparison with alternatives (e.g., 'use zda_list_views for summaries'). Meets minimum viability but could be clearer.

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