读取排版规范

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden. It discloses the substance of the return value (rules, rationale, impossible-to-automate cases) and that it works standalone without Notion, which implies it is a static reference rather than a live query. It does not state whether the content is fixed or versioned, its format, or its size, which for a large spec document an agent might want to know.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the standalone-usage note. Every clause contributes, though the Notion remark is slightly oblique without further context.

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, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description needs to characterize the payload itself, and it does: a full layout rulebook with rationale and feasibility notes. An agent knows enough to call it and roughly what it will get back; only the output form (markdown, structured data) remains unspecified.

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 disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource – it returns the complete typography/layout specification – and enumerates its content (which changes are worth making, which APIs can't achieve, why each rule exists). It is clear about what the tool produces but does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as scan_layout_rules or audit_structure.

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?

One usage condition is given: the spec can be followed on its own when Notion isn't connected. That is a real context cue, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus scan_layout_rules or audit_structure, so the agent must infer that this is the reference-reading counterpart to those scanning tools.

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