list_perspectives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all available perspectives' but does not disclose that the include_custom and include_built_in parameters control which perspectives are returned, nor does it mention that listing is a read-only operation (though implied). The description is misleading by saying 'all' when filtering options exist, and lacks detail on side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single, focused sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple list 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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values) and the tool is simple, the description is incomplete because it fails to clarify parameter semantics and usage context. With no annotations and sibling tools like get_perspective_view, the description leaves the agent uncertain about when to use this tool and how to filter perspectives effectively.

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 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the include_custom and include_built_in parameters. An agent cannot infer what 'custom' vs 'built-in' perspectives mean or how the defaults behave beyond the schema's basic titles/defaults. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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') and clear resource ('all available perspectives in OmniFocus'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_perspective_view (which focuses on a single perspective's view) and list_tags (which lists tags). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests use when a list of all perspectives is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like query_omnifocus or dump_database, nor does it provide exclusions or context about filtering. Usage guidance is implied by the tool's nature but not explicitly articulated.

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