ide.detectLayout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it declares the operation is local-only with no network access, and it discloses the return shape ('list of matching adapters' with concrete examples). It stops short of stating it is strictly read-only/non-mutating or what happens when no layout matches.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the purpose lands first and the execution/return constraints follow. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and return contents, which is nearly all an agent needs. Minor gaps remain (no-match behavior, relationship to the sync/listing siblings) but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain or compensate for.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Detect') with a specific resource ('IDE skill/rule layouts'), plus the scope ('in the current working directory'), so the agent knows exactly what is inspected. It does not, however, contrast itself with related siblings such as sync.fromIde or skills.listLocal, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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 only usage-flavored statement is 'Local-only, no network,' which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over sync.fromIde or skills.listLocal, nor what precondition it satisfies.

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