get_layout_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns layout options but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects (none implied), or authentication needs. It is minimal and leaves room for uncertainty.

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 very concise with a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is purposeful, and there is no 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return format. However, the description 'Layout options for the specified layout' is vague and could be more specific about what kind of options. It is minimally complete given the presence of output schema.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it explains that layout_id is the ID from get_layouts(). However, the schema coverage is 0% for the parameter, and the description does not specify format or constraints. It provides basic but not rich semantic context.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'layout options for a specific layout'. It differentiates from sibling tools like set_layout_options, which would be the mutation counterpart. The mention of getting layout_id from get_layouts() adds context.

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 hints at a prerequisite (get layout_id from get_layouts()), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage direction.

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