List layouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool lists layouts with descriptions and enumerates the exact values, so the agent knows what to expect. The verb 'List' conveys a read-only behavior, and the description provides all necessary behavioral information for this simple tool.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates the supported layouts, while the second explains the practical use case. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the full set of supported values and their intended use. It lacks an explicit mention of the return format, but the enumeration and 'with descriptions' phrase give the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is vacuous and the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, and it doesn't need to.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'tab layouts', with a concrete enumeration of supported values. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_layout (which sets layouts) and list_panes (which lists panes).

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 second sentence explicitly tells the agent to use the returned ids for a group/tab `layout`, connecting this tool to set_layout. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the usage context is clear and actionable.

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