list_metadata_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that views are listed without describing whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination applies, what kind of view metadata is returned, or how the results are structured. For a simple list operation this may be acceptable, but the lack of any behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately concise for a zero-functional-parameter list operation.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what counts as an 'available' metadata view, what fields are returned for each view, or how the results relate to other metadata tools. A slightly richer description naming examples or linking to get_metadata_view would make it fully complete.

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 contains only a placeholder parameter explicitly described as 'not used', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed because the tool effectively has no functional parameters. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the minimal parameter semantics.

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 is a clear and specific statement: 'List all available metadata views' names the verb, the resource, and the scope ('all available'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like list_metadata_fields and get_metadata_view, which involve different resources.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this could be a prerequisite for get_metadata_view, nor does it contrast with list_metadata_fields or get_asset_metadata_view.

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