Get Form Layout

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves layout structure and supports both live and pre-live app settings. No misleading or missing behavior is noted; for a read-only tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the layout includes and provides use cases. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'pre-live' for preview), but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('form layout from a kintone app'), clearly stating what the tool returns ('layout structure with rows, subtables, groups, and field positioning'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-form-fields or update-form-layout.

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 clear usage context: 'Use to understand current form arrangement before layout updates' and 'Essential when adding new fields that need specific positioning or when rearranging existing fields.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the use cases are well-defined.

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