Get a page layout recipe

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

Annotations already establish read-only safety, so the description adds value by detailing the exact contents returned (regions, responsive strategy, accessibility obligations, dark-mode notes, markup, CSS) and the design trait (flex-first, most no media queries). This goes beyond the bare annotation and sets expectations for output richness.

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 two tight sentences: the first lists the output components, the second notes the design constraints. No redundant or filler words; every phrase adds 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?

For a simple read-only tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the payload includes and its design approach. It lacks an explicit return format or pagination details, but these are not necessary given the finite enum and read-only nature. The coverage is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 schema covers the only parameter (id) with an enum and a short description. The tool description does not add further meaning to the id parameter itself; it does not explain the differences between enum values or how to choose an id. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter semantics, so baseline 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 clearly identifies this as a page-level layout retrieval tool, enumerating the deliverable contents (regions, responsive strategy, accessibility, dark-mode, markup, CSS), and the title 'Get a page layout recipe' reinforces the specific resource. It distinguishes from component/pattern/token tools in the sibling list by focusing on complete page blueprints.

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 implies usage for complete page layouts through its blueprint content, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_component or get_pattern, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The flex-first note hints at design context but not tool selection.

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