layout_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail (stable IDs, symbols, resolutions, modification times) but does not explain scoping behavior, pagination, or why a read-only list tool has a target_id parameter.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource come first, followed by the useful return fields.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields. However, it leaves the undocumented 'filter' parameter and the odd target_id/expected_layout_id semantics unexplained, so it is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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 description says nothing about the three parameters, and the 'filter' parameter has no schema description at all. While target_id and expected_layout_id have schema descriptions, their mutation-oriented wording ('Required for changes', 'before writing') is not reconciled with this read-only listing tool, leaving a real semantic 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved layouts') and states the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as layout_get, layout_snapshot, or pane_layout_options, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description only says what the tool lists; it gives no guidance on when to use it instead of layout_get, layout_snapshot, or pane_layout_options. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing.

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