List Page Setups

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: it names the source of truth (LAYOUT object in headless mode vs the AutoCAD Layout in live mode), states that unknown layout names are refused, and that Model is excluded. It does not discuss pagination or error shapes, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotation.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded with the resource being read, then the field list, then the failure/exclusion note. The long field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but each element carries semantic weight and the text avoids filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers scope, data source, refusal behavior, and the model-space workaround. With the output schema handling return structure, nothing essential is missing, though the field-by-field enumeration partially duplicates it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single layout parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for every sheet' default and the Model exclusion. The description reinforces the paper-space-only scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the specific resource (the page setup stored on each paper-space layout) and enumerates exactly which properties are read back (paper, size_mm, orientation, plot_style, scale, plot_area, device, margins_mm, center), which makes the purpose unambiguous against siblings like page_setup_apply or layout_list. It stops short of naming the 'list' verb or contrasting with sibling list tools, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 gives an explicit exclusion (Model is never listed; unknown layout names are refused) and routes the model-space case to an alternative tool, drawing_export_pdf(layout=None). It does not advise when to prefer this over layout_list or page_setup_apply, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives 5.

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