get_device_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and explains the effect of the 'full' parameter (summary vs complete JSON). No destructive or side effects are mentioned, but for a read tool nothing more is needed. The description adds value beyond the schema, which had 0% coverage.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for context, one for parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The key information is front-loaded 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?

Given the tool has a single boolean parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter does. No additional details about return values are needed because the output schema provides that.

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 description fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by explicitly explaining the sole parameter 'full': true returns complete layout JSON, false (default) returns summary. This is clear, actionable, and adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default alone.

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 clearly states the tool reads the live device layout, using a specific verb-resource pair ('Read the layout'). It distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like push_layout and other read tools like get_sample_layout by focusing on the current live state. The phrase 'Lets you SEE what's on the phone before editing' reinforces the core purpose.

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 description provides clear usage context: use this tool to inspect the live layout before editing. It implies not to push blindlessly, indirectly guiding the agent to use get_device_layout before mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, which would elevate the score to 5.

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