list_layout_designs

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. 'List' implies a read operation with no side effects, but no details on output format, pagination, or ordering. Adequate for a simple list, but minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with key information. No filler or redundant words. Efficient and clear.

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 parameterless list tool with output schema, the description is functional but misses the chance to mention scope differentiation (firm-wide vs matter-specific layout lists) and that output schema exists. Might confuse with sibling 'list_layouts_on_matter'.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (none needed). It neither improves nor degrades beyond baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'layout designs (document templates)', clearly stating the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_layouts_on_matter' by specifying 'available for this firm' (firm-wide scope).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_layout_design' (single) or 'list_layouts_on_matter' (matter-specific). The description implies firm-wide scope but lacks when-not or alternative suggestions.

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