get_grid_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavior: isGrid:false is returned for frames not in GRID layout, which prevents the agent from misinterpreting the response. It stops short of confirming read-only safety, permission requirements, or failure modes for an invalid nodeId.

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?

Three tight clauses: what it reads, the edge-case return, and the recommended timing. Front-loaded with the primary payload and no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does name the return fields plus the isGrid flag. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the exact shape of the returned data and nodeId semantics remain implicit.

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 single required nodeId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The phrase "a GRID frame" implicitly indicates the id targets a frame node, but there is no explicit statement of what the id refers to, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus precise resource (a GRID frame's layout) and an enumerated return set: track counts, gaps, per-track sizes, and each child's cell, span, and alignment. This clearly separates it from the write-side siblings set_grid_layout, set_grid_child_position, and reorder_grid_tracks.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: "Call this before repositioning children so you know the grid's bounds." That gives a real workflow condition, but it does not name the specific alternative tools or state what to do for non-grid frames beyond the isGrid:false return.

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