layout_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description is free to add value, and it does: it discloses that undefined header/footer kinds are returned as null (inherited) and that the plan carries a "version": 1. That inheritance and versioning detail is non-obvious behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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?

A single dense but well-ordered paragraph that front-loads the resource ("The document's page plan") before enumerating contents. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded, though the enumeration is slightly list-like in prose form.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly: section structure, header/footer kinds, null inheritance, field placeholders ({PAGE}, {NUMPAGES}, {chapter}), and a version marker. Only the relationship to sibling layout/section tools is left unexplained.

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% and the single parameter (doc) is documented as "Path to the .docx." The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource as "The document's page plan" with a precise enumeration of what it contains (section starts, breaks, page numbering, title page, header/footer per kind). It is a noun-phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like layout_apply or sections_list, but an agent can tell this is a read of layout data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use layout_get versus layout_apply or sections_list, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the .docx must be open). The description only says what the tool returns, not when to reach for it.

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