presentation-get-layout-by-path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw layout). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity in layout retrieval.

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's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, 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 complexity of layout retrieval (implied by parameters like finalLayout and language), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layout' means in this context, what the output contains, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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 fully documents the three parameters (path, finalLayout, language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'master:' default path context or the distinction between final and shared layouts. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 path' states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('item layout'), but it's vague about what 'item layout' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'presentation-get-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-get-default-layout-device'. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'presentation-get-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-get-default-layout-device'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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