Get layout settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: which values are derived from the master layout, that displayMasterLayoutBelow is always false on layouts, that page count/revision are read-only, and per-item error surfacing.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a dense but useful enumeration of fields and the output shape. The long mid-sentence field list is heavy but nearly every clause (units, master-layout derivation, read-only markers) carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape including the per-layout error variant, plus field units and semantics. An agent can parse results and construct the call without opening anything else.

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?

Only one parameter, and the description adds just 'Layouts by id or name', which largely restates the detailed item schema description (GUID from get_navigator_tree, or name / 'ID name'). With the schema carrying the accepted identifier formats, the description's contribution here is minimal.

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 specific verb+resource ('Returns the settings of layouts or master layouts') and enumerates the exact settings returned, so an agent knows precisely what data it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from its write sibling set_layout_settings, which is named.

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?

Provides input guidance ('Layouts by id or name') and names the complementary action ('Change them with set_layout_settings'), which routes the agent correctly for mutation vs read. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions, but the read/write split is unambiguous.

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