list_data_views

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating listing operation and describes the informational content returned. It does not discuss pagination or access requirements, but the scope is simple enough that 'List' and 'Shows' provide adequate transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the only useful output detail without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (index patterns and names), and enough context to choose it. There are no missing fields or expected inputs that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics because there are none to document; the empty schema already conveys that the tool takes no input.

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 ('Kibana data views (index patterns)') and states what the tool exposes: all available log sources with their index patterns and names. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling list_indices by naming the Kibana-specific 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 when to use the tool: when you need to see Kibana data views or available log sources. However, it does not explicitly compare to the sibling list_indices tool or state when one should choose data views over raw index listing, leaving some routing to inference.

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