godot_get_editor_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns dock positions and open main screens, which is useful for setting expectations. However, it doesn't add further detail (e.g., no mention of scoping limitations or that it excludes certain layout aspects). The description adds modest value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler. It communicates the essence efficiently.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It states the purpose and scope clearly. A minor gap is not referencing the setter for contrast, but this isn't essential for a simple getter.

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 parameter include_open_scenes is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Whether to include currently open scene tabs in the editor response.'). The tool description itself does not mention this parameter, but since the schema covers it adequately, the description doesn't need to repeat it. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Query') and names the exact resource ('active editor dock positions and open main screens'). It clearly distinguishes this getter from the sibling godot_set_editor_layout and other query tools by stating what data it retrieves. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling setter (godot_set_editor_layout) or any exclusions like 'use this instead of inspecting via other means.' An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart. No context is provided about typical scenarios or prerequisites.

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