ide.detectLayout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses local-only and no network, but does not explicitly state side effects (likely none), permissions needed, or error conditions. The behavior is fairly clear but could be more detailed.

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 sentences: first states action and output, second adds constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb. Very concise and well-structured.

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 detection tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the current working directory, the output (list of adapters), and constraints (local-only). A minor gap is not explaining what 'rule layouts' are exactly, but the examples help.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it does not contradict 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?

The description clearly states the tool detects IDE skill/rule layouts and returns a list of adapters (e.g., cursor, claude, kiro). The verb 'Detect' combined with the resource 'IDE skill/rule layouts' is specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., skills.listLocal focuses on listing skills, not layouts).

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 notes the tool is 'Local-only, no network,' implying it should be used for local detection but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cloud.* or skills.* tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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