Get a page layout recipe

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and closed-world; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: returned recipes are flex-first, mostly avoid media queries, include accessibility and dark-mode obligations, and are paste-ready. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first is front-loaded with what the tool returns, the second adds a useful style qualifier. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with an enum and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output contents and general style of the result. It does not describe the response envelope, but the simplicity of the input and annotations make this a minor gap.

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 100% of parameters, with the single id parameter fully described and an enum of valid layout ids. The description adds nothing about parameter selection, so the schema carries the burden as expected.

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 specifies a concrete deliverable – 'a complete page blueprint' – and enumerates its contents: regions, responsive strategy, accessibility obligations, dark-mode notes, and paste-ready markup plus CSS. This clearly identifies a full-layout resource and sets it apart from component/foundation-level sibling tools.

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 'complete page blueprint' phrasing implies this is the tool for whole-page layouts, and the flex-first note hints at general usage context. However, it never names alternatives like get_component or get_foundation nor says when not to use this tool, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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