List Asset Layouts

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the vendor honours page but ignores page_size, page N is always the vendor's Nth page so walking never skips rows, has_more is conservative (true for any non-empty page), and you stop when a page comes back empty. It also confirms the tool takes no operation argument and cannot be redirected to a write, which the annotations do not state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then pagination mechanics, then filters, then the alternative, then the gating rationale. Despite its length, every sentence carries distinct information (no restatement of the name or title), so nothing reads as filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not needed here. For a zero-required-parameter list tool with sibling overlap, the description supplies the pagination contract, filter guidance, the alternative read tool, and the gating distinction — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces page semantics (one page, never followed) but adds little beyond what the schema's own page description already provides, and says nothing extra about name/slug/active/updated_at beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ONE bounded page of asset layouts') and pins the backing operation (asset_layouts.list). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming hudu_get_asset_layout, hudu_search, and the gated hudu_read/hudu_write/hudu_delete, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('use the name or slug filter to find a layout'), when-to-use-something-else ('Prefer hudu_get_asset_layout to read one layout in full'), and the exclusion that asset_layouts is not searchable so hudu_search cannot return one. It also names the ungated path as the reason to prefer this over the approval-gated siblings.

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