snapshot_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Return' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about what the summary contains, whether it covers all sketches or only the current workspace, whether it paginates, or what form the 'structural summary' output takes. With no output schema and thin prose, an agent has little behavioral confidence.

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?

A single tight, front-loaded sentence with no waste or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity verges on under-specification given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the returned 'structural summary' consists of and how includeState/includeGroups affect it. It does neither, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or know whether the snapshot reflects the whole workspace or just the open sketch.

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 100% and both booleans (includeState, includeGroups) are documented with defaults in the schema. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for a schema-complete tool applies.

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 verb and resource ('Return a structural summary of the workspace layout'), which is clearer than a tautology, but 'structural summary' is vague about what is actually returned (sketch positions? groups? bounds? canvas dimensions?). It does not differentiate itself from plausibly overlapping siblings such as get_editor_state, list_workspace_sketches, or get_selection, so an agent cannot confidently tell which one to pick.

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 trailing clause 'for AI spatial reasoning' hints at a use case but gives no concrete when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. There is no exclusion guidance at all, leaving the agent to guess when a layout snapshot is preferable to list_workspace_sketches or get_editor_state.

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