get_view_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the return type (field names, data types, descriptions) but does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is minimally adequate for a read-only schema endpoint.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies return content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is brief but adequate for a simple schema retrieval tool. It lacks details on output format or constraints, but the tool's function is clear given the name and sibling context. Without output schema or annotations, more detail could improve completeness.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (view_name and aggregation). The description adds little beyond the schema, merely referencing 'any view endpoint'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema documentation.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'schema definition for any view endpoint', and specifies output ('field names, data types, and descriptions'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling data retrieval tools like get_authorizations or get_cards.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for schema exploration, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. Given the numerous sibling tools, more explicit context would be helpful.

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