fm_get_layout_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get detailed metadata.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, whether it depends on an existing connection, or how errors are surfaced.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action and object. It is under-specified in behavioral terms, but as pure conciseness it is well-formed.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, plus the existence of an overlapping sibling named fm_get_metadata, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what metadata is returned, how this tool relates to fm_get_metadata, or any preconditions for successful use.

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 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, the schema descriptions are terse ('Layout name', 'Database identifier'), and the description adds no extra semantic context about how the parameters relate or affect the result.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed metadata for a specific layout'), which makes the basic purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling fm_get_metadata, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus fm_get_metadata, fm_get_scripts, or other siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the generic purpose sentence.

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