presentation-get-layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that the returned object is the layout definition item (e.g. 'Headless Layout') rather than the renderings, which is the key semantic distinction an agent needs. It adds no auth, pagination, or size caveats, though the schema's 'full' description covers the size concern.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first pins the exact return semantics, the second routes to the alternative. The distinguishing scope statement is front-loaded before the alternative reference.

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 read-only lookup with a fully documented 6-parameter schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies what the structured data cannot: what the returned layout item actually is versus renderings, plus an alternative. No output schema exists, so clarifying the return semantics is valuable; only minor gaps (finalLayout/shared-layout implication) remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (id/path mutual option, full, fields, language, finalLayout) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('gets the layout definition item assigned to an item') and sharply delimits scope by contrasting it with renderings placed on the page. Names the sibling presentation-list-renderings, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent presentation tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to presentation-list-renderings when the goal is a page's components, which is a real alternative in this sibling set. It stops short of a full when/when-not matrix (no mention of finalLayout vs shared layout choice or when to prefer this over presentation-get-layout-device), so it's clear context rather than complete guidance.

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