list_layouts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, but the read-only nature is clearly implied by 'List' and the summary of returned fields (page size, element counts) is disclosed. It says nothing about ordering, empty-project behavior, or pagination, which is a modest gap for a trivial enumerator.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the notable return fields are stated immediately.

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 read-only enumerator with an output schema backing the return shape, the description covers what the agent needs to select and invoke it. Only marginal ordering/edge-case context is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing is misstated about 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (print layouts) plus the salient return contents (page size, element counts), which tells the agent what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_layout_info, which covers a single layout, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: reach for this when you need an inventory of layouts rather than details of one. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g., get_layout_info for a single layout) are given.

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