tv_layout_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing that it opens the UI menu and is a 'best-effort' operation, implying potential unreliability. This extra behavioral context goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one complete sentence plus a short clarifying phrase. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns. It states it lists names, but not the format (e.g., array of strings) or behavior on failure. The complexity is low, but the lack of output details makes it slightly incomplete.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is effectively 100% since no properties. Per guidelines, 0 parameters is baseline 4.

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?

Description clearly states the tool opens the layouts menu and lists saved chart layout names. The verb 'list' and resource 'chart layout names' are specific. However, 'Best-effort selector' is ambiguous and could imply selection beyond listing, slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like tv_layout_switch and tv_layout_save.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use. Among many layout-related siblings, there is no explicit comparison or context for selection.

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