Read the actual widget layout ID, name, dirty state, symbol and resolution.
Read the actual widget layout ID, name, dirty state, symbol and resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns live layout metadata including dirty state, symbol, and resolution, but does not explain the optional expected_layout_id guard or what happens when no layout is active.
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 definition is a single compact sentence with zero waste, and the core action plus returned fields are front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields, and the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter semantics. It omits explicit sibling routing and edge-case behavior, but is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 both target_id and expected_layout_id are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given that baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("widget layout") and enumerates the fields returned: ID, name, dirty state, symbol, and resolution. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like layout_list or layout_open, but an agent can still tell it retrieves current layout state.
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?
The word "actual" implies reading the live/current widget layout rather than a saved list, which hints at usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any named alternative such as layout_list or pane_layout_options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.