get_plugin_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the result is conditional on a previously saved layout existing. It says nothing further about lookup behavior, plugin matching, or error/absence semantics.

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 the resource and parenthetically defining the payload format. No filler, though the sentence spends its space on the return value rather than the invocation, which is a mild misallocation given an output schema already exists.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return structure. The remaining gap — how to specify the required "plugin" argument and what happens when no layout was saved — leaves the definition only minimally complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required "plugin" parameter has no title-level documentation beyond its name. The description mentions "plug-in" only as part of describing the returned value and never explains how to identify the plugin (name, index, URI, device path), so the agent has no format guidance for its only input.

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 names the resource and clarifies its shape ("control positions as window fractions") plus the conditional nature ("if one was saved"), which is more than the bare name. However it is phrased as a noun phrase describing a return value rather than a verb+resource action, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling save_plugin_layout or the related expose_plugin_params.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage-adjacent signal is the conditional "if one was saved," which hints the layout may be absent but does not tell the agent what to do in that case or when to prefer save_plugin_layout / expose_plugin_params / get_plugin_profile instead.

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