niri_get_keyboard_layouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies what is retrieved (configured layouts and active index). However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any other traits beyond the basic read action.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the full purpose without any wasted words. It is concise and efficient.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and why it would be used. It is complete for the tool's simplicity and fits well within the sibling context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the baseline rule for no-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate despite no extra param details in the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('configured keyboard layouts') plus the additional detail of returning the 'current active layout index'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like niri_get_workspaces or niri_get_outputs.

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 description implies usage for retrieving keyboard layout information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple getter, but no explicit guidance is offered.

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