get_keyboard_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (return format, whether layout is per-keyboard, latency), but a zero-param read has little to disclose.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no waste. Appropriately sized for a trivial getter, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally hint at the return value (e.g., a layout identifier such as 'us' or 'de'). As written it does not, leaving the return shape ambiguous, though the tool is simple enough that this is 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries all the necessary structure and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current keyboard layout'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not mention the sibling that changes this state (switch_keyboard_layout), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Read-only query intent is implied by 'current', and the surrounding sibling names make the read/write split inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use or pointing to switch_keyboard_layout as the counterpart.

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