crm_get_layouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about error recovery (check module permissions and layout availability) and prerequisites, but does not disclose behavioral traits like response format or that it is read-only (though implied by 'Get'). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sections for prerequisites, next steps, common pattern, and error recovery. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each section earns its place, though it is slightly longer than absolutely necessary. Overall it is concise and logically organized.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It includes the workflow from discovery to modification, error recovery tips, and a clear pattern. It does not describe the return value shape, but for a list tool this is acceptable given the other context provided.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'module_name' with a clear description ('Optional module name to filter layouts'). The tool description does not add further meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Get all layouts for modules including page layouts, related lists, and section configurations.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools by referencing crm_get_layout_details for specific configuration analysis, making the 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 explicitly provides prerequisites ('Use crm_get_all_modules first'), next steps ('Use crm_get_layout_details...', 'Use crm_update_layout if modifications are needed'), and a common workflow pattern (crm_get_all_modules → crm_get_layouts → crm_get_layout_details → crm_update_layout). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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