get_astah_layout_guidelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns rules but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the output format is, or any potential limitations. The phrase 'aplicadas pelo servidor' adds minimal context but does not meaningfully disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious retrieval action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, achieving maximum efficiency for the information it conveys.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient to understand its basic purpose. However, it lacks detail about the return value's format or content, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided. The description does not explain what 'readability and layout rules' entail or how they might be structured, leaving the agent to guess. For a no-arg getter, this is adequate but not complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object (schema description coverage is 100%). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retorna' (Returns) and clearly identifies the resource as 'as regras de legibilidade e disposição aplicadas pelo servidor' (readability and layout rules applied by the server). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'verify_astah_visual_layout' (which verifies layout) and 'get_astah_capabilities' (which returns capabilities), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred. Given the existence of sibling tools such as 'verify_astah_visual_layout' and 'get_astah_capabilities', some usage guidance would be helpful but is absent.

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