nws_print_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It notes that output can optionally go to a file, but it does not disclose permissions, overwrite behavior, side effects of sync_first, or whether the operation mutates data. The missing safety and side-effect context is a significant gap for a tool that may write files.

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 front-loaded with a concise purpose sentence, followed by a dense but relevant options list. The option names are useful because the schema has no descriptions, and there is little filler, though the list could be formatted more clearly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves top-level parameters and operational behavior underdocumented; only partial nested options are covered. It is not complete enough for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters. It helpfully names many nested option keys for two report types, but it omits the meaning of report_type values, sync_first, output_path, output_format, and most option value formats. The partial options list adds some value but leaves major parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Build the data of a supported desktop print layout, optionally to a file." It also names the two supported report types (TerritoryAssignmentRecords and TerritoryCards). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling nws_print_layouts tool.

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 implies usage by listing options for two report types, but it never states when to use this tool versus nws_print_layouts, nws_export, or other siblings. There are no when-not conditions or alternative-routing guidance.

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