onda_workspace_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavior disclosure. The verb 'Read' implies non-mutating behavior, and it discloses the null-return edge case for unknown workspace ids. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects', but the read framing plus the return contract is sufficient for a read-only tool.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: output contents, usage guidance, and edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and provides a concrete use case. It could be more detailed about the mosaic tree structure, but the essentials are covered, and the tool's purpose is simple enough that this is adequate.

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% for the single optional workspaceId parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the null-return behavior for unknown ids and reinforcing that omitting the parameter uses the active workspace, which goes beyond the schema's simple description.

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 starts with 'Read the current layout of a workspace', clearly specifying a read verb and the resource (workspace layout). It enumerates the returned data (mosaic tree, pane IDs, active pane, viewport dimensions, per-pane cwd), making it distinct from sibling tools like pane_split or workspace_focus.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this BEFORE spawning a new terminal to decide where to place it (right/down/replace) and whether the viewport has room.' It also gives guidance on workspaceId omission and the null return for unknown ids, offering clear contextual direction.

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