presentation-get-layout-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('gets') without details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, though it correctly implies a non-destructive read.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'item layout' returns, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use despite the well-documented schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all three parameters (id, finalLayout, language). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Gets item layout by Id' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'gets' and resource 'item layout', but lacks detail on what 'item layout' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'presentation-get-layout-by-path'. This provides basic clarity but no sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'presentation-get-layout-by-path' (which likely retrieves layout by path instead of ID) or clarify prerequisites such as required permissions or item existence. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction.

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