workiva_list_presentation_layouts

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 only uses the word 'List,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, output structure, error cases, or any other behavioral traits. The description is minimally transparent.

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 description is appropriately concise, using only two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids verbosity. However, it is perhaps too sparse, but for a single-parameter list operation, the length is acceptable.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values are not described in the text, which is fine. But the description lacks context about what layouts are, how the list is ordered, or any filtering capabilities. It also does not explain use cases or edge cases, leaving the agent without enough context for complex decisions. For a simple list tool this might be sufficient, but the description is so thin that completeness is low.

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 schema has one parameter with zero description coverage. The description compensates by stating 'presentation_id: The presentation UUID,' which clarifies the parameter's type and format. This is useful but minimal, adding only a single line of semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'List layouts in a presentation.' The verb 'list' and resource 'layouts' are specific, and the resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_get_presentation or workiva_list_presentation_slides. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from those siblings or a definition of what a layout is, so it is not a perfect 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only says what it does, not when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. This gives the agent no context for tool selection.

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