get_sample_layout

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'returns full JSON' but does not specify the response structure or any error handling. No mention of side effects or permissions for this read operation.

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?

Description is very concise, consisting of one sentence and an Args list. It is front-loaded but could be improved with clearer structure (e.g., separate lines). No wasted words.

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's simplicity (one param, output schema present), description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention that names come from 'list_sample_layouts' or behavior on invalid names.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds value by explaining the 'name' parameter accepts filenames (e.g., 'demo-offline.json') or names without extension. This clarifies the expected input beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the full JSON of a sample layout file,' specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sample_layouts' (listing) and 'get_device_layout' (device-specific).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'list_sample_layouts' or 'get_layout_schema.' It does not mention prerequisites like first listing available names.

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