crm_get_layout_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates the output contents (sections, fields, display rules) and includes error recovery ('If "Layout not found" error, verify layout_id with crm_get_layouts'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, though the verb 'Get' inherently implies it. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is given.

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 well-structured with clear markdown sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, Error Recovery). Every sentence serves a purpose—providing the core purpose, workflow integration, and error handling—without redundant fluff. It is front-loaded with the main function and organized for quick scanning.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains what data is returned, how to obtain the required layout_id, how the tool fits into a larger workflow, and how to recover from errors. No additional context is necessary for an agent to use it 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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a basic description ('ID of the layout'). The description adds meaningful context by advising to obtain the ID via crm_get_layouts, which clarifies the provenance and validity of layout_id. This additional guidance justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 'Get detailed metadata for a specific layout including sections, fields, and display rules,' which is a specific verb+resource+contents. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crm_get_layouts (which lists layouts) and crm_update_layout (which modifies), making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance, including prerequisites ('Use crm_get_layouts first to discover available layout IDs'), next steps ('Use crm_update_layout to modify layout configuration'), and a common pattern 'crm_get_layouts → crm_get_layout_details → crm_update_layout'. This clearly indicates when to use this tool and what to use before/after it.

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