Get reference layout

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already covers safety, and the description adds valuable context about what the tool actually returns: the blueprint plus reasoning. It also gives a behavioral directive for using the output, which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 only two sentences: one states the tool's output, the other provides adaptation guidance. Every word earns its place, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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-only get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what content to expect (blueprint + reasoning) and how to apply it. It doesn't detail the exact structure of a reference layout, but that's not critical for invoking the tool 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 the single parameter layout_id with a clear source reference (from list_reference_layouts). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool returns one full reference layout, including the blueprint and the reasoning behind its structure. This distinguishes it from list_reference_layouts (which lists layouts) and other get operations like get_blueprint, making the purpose specific and 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?

It provides clear guidance on how to use the returned layout: adapt it rather than applying it verbatim, prioritizing user theme and wording. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of listing first is implied via the parameter description and sibling tool names.

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