pane_layout_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this is a static catalog of native codes, and the account's actual entitlement is NOT validated here, meaning returned codes may fail when applied. That caveat is the key behavioral fact an agent needs.

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?

A single sentence with the payload front-loaded (what is listed) followed by the caveat (entitlement checked on application). No filler, no restating of the title or tool name.

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 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it: what it returns at a high level and the entitlement caveat. It could add a note on how to proceed after getting codes (e.g., pass a code to pane_set_layout), but nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is accordingly empty and fully covered.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List known native layout codes and expected displayed chart counts'), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It implicitly separates itself from the mutating siblings (pane_set_layout) by noting entitlement is only checked on application, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a reference lookup to perform before calling pane_set_layout, since entitlement is validated at application time. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use for' guidance, and no mention of whether the codes are version- or account-dependent.

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