Get Asset Layout

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: layouts are instance-wide, field edits are not exposed on update due to an API contradiction, and there is no delete endpoint. These are non-obvious traits that help an agent predict tool behavior without running 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 well-organized: the main action is front-loaded, followed by a definition, scope, and key caveats, then an explicit alternative tool. Every sentence contributes unique information, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. The trailing 'Operation class: Read' is slightly redundant with annotations but does not hurt.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what an asset layout is, its instance-wide scope, mutation limitations (no field edits, no delete), and a lookup strategy (list first). This makes the tool fully navigable by an agent without needing additional external knowledge.

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 already provides complete documentation for both parameters (id description and response_format enum/description), with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—only clarifying that ids are not guessable, which is more of a usage hint than a semantic of the id parameter itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one asset layout by its numeric id.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling hudu_list_asset_layouts by emphasizing the numeric id retrieval, and the surrounding context (layout definition, instance-wide scope) further clarifies what this tool uniquely returns.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use hudu_list_asset_layouts first if you only know a name' is a direct alternative recommendation, backed by the caveat that 'ids are not guessable' and that 404 responses are ambiguous. It also notes the lack of a delete endpoint and suggests the active:false retirement path, which helps agents choose the right action.

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