fm_get_layout_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While 'get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, require certain permissions, or have rate limits. This lack of clarity is especially problematic for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with key information and remains appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description could provide more context about the return value (e.g., structure of metadata, whether field definitions include types or attributes). It mentions 'field definitions' but omits other potential metadata like layout security or scripts. The description is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents both parameters meaningfully. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get metadata for a specific layout including field definitions'. It uses a precise verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('metadata for a specific layout'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fm_get_layouts' (which lists layout names) and 'fm_get_records' (which retrieves records).

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 use for retrieving detailed layout metadata, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fm_get_layouts' or 'fm_get_records'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, limiting the agent's ability to decide between similar tools.

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