tm1_list_views

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List views' effectively signals a read-only operation and identifies what is returned, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or whether private and public views are included. This is adequate but minimal.

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 is five words and contains no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it highly efficient for an agent evaluating it.

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 one-parameter list tool, this description is nearly sufficient, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves the agent to assume the return shape and view scope. It covers the essential invocation but skips details that would make it fully self-contained.

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 schema has one parameter, cubeName, with no description. The description's 'on a cube' provides some context linking the parameter to the operation, but it does not explain the parameter's format or expected values. The parameter is self-explanatory, so this is acceptable but not enriching.

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 clear action ('List') and resource ('views') scoped to a cube, so an agent can tell what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the resource type is distinct enough to avoid confusion with list_cubes, list_dimensions, or list_hierarchies.

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 phrase 'on a cube' implies when the tool should be used: when the user wants the views associated with a specific cube. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the usage context only implied.

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