get_layouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of layouts with IDs and names, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify any behavioral traits like project state assumptions, error cases, or performance characteristics. It adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a return line. It avoids fluff and presents the key information upfront. Every sentence adds value.

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 is simple (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete in one aspect: it does not clarify what 'current project' means (e.g., the currently open project in Dorico). The return format is mentioned briefly, but with an output schema present, that is acceptable. Overall, it covers the essential but leaves some ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none.

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 'Get list of layouts' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_layout_options (which likely retrieves settings) and get_flows (different concept). The purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, such as requiring an open project, or when to prefer get_layout_options or get_flows. The description merely states what the tool does.

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