list_search_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. It discloses that views are persisted records tied to search_context calls, which is useful context, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or any ordering/pagination details beyond the schema's 'recent views' hint, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the core purpose, the definition of a view, and the practical use case. It is front-loaded with the action, has no redundancy, and every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (views), why the data matters (clusters from search_context), and when it should be used (before creating/extending a theme). It does not describe the exact fields of a view, but the low complexity and clear naming make this a minor gap.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is already fully described in the schema as 'Maximum number of recent views to return.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource, 'List saved search views,' which is unambiguous. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining that a view records clusters from a previous search_context call, setting it apart from siblings like list_tags and list_themes.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: 'Use these views as candidate sets before creating or extending a theme.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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