Read layouts and their elements

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only semantics, enumerates the side-effect-free surface (no programmer/playback/Viewer changes), and discloses the pagination truncation flag. It does not cover concurrency, performance, or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 scope statement is front-loaded, then return contents, then safety, then the pagination caveat — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly list-heavy, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, safety profile, and pagination behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is that limit/offset semantics and the distinction from adjacent layout/cell tools are left implicit.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain data_pool (explicit pool), layout (one layout vs the whole pool), and schema (returns the live property schema), but limit and offset are only implied by 'bounded element pages' and the incomplete-page note — neither is named, defaulted, or bounded in prose. That is meaningful partial compensation, not full 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 states a specific verb and resource: read the Layout pool or a single layout within an explicit data pool, and it enumerates what comes back (element numbers, GUIDs, object handles, geometry, appearance, custom text, visibility). An agent can distinguish this read path from mutation siblings like gma3_store_layout or gma3_edit_layout_elements. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives clear operating context: read-only, and no selection, programmer, playback, or Viewer window changes, which tells the agent it is safe to call during inspection. It also adds a real procedural rule — an incomplete page is flagged, so read all pages before planning a broad edit. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-that routing against gma3_layout_cells or gma3_list_children.

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