get_page_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the tool as a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, the return format, or what 'layout' includes. For a read tool with no annotations, more transparency would help.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with a clarifying parenthetical. No wasted words. Perfectly sized for this simple tool.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations and any behavioral context. An agent would need to guess the meaning of siteId and pageId and what the return structure contains.

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%, so the schema gives no parameter documentation. The description does not mention siteId or pageId at all, leaving both required parameters completely undefined. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Get the canvas layout of a page'. The parenthetical '(sections, columns, web parts)' adds detail about what layout means. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_page, but the specific subject 'layout' distinguishes it from the get_page metadata tool.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_page, list_pages, or other read tools. No prerequisites or context given. The agent must infer that this is for retrieving structural layout information, but the description offers no guidance on appropriate scenarios.

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