presentation-get-layout-device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'layout' includes (e.g., structure, components). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layout' returns (e.g., data structure, fields), potential side effects, or error conditions, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite the simple parameter 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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with a clear parameter 'name' described as 'Name of the device to return.' The description implies the parameter specifies the device but doesn't elaborate on format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the layout for the device specified' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (layout for device), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'layout' entails (e.g., presentation settings, configuration) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'presentation-get-default-layout-device' or 'presentation-get-layout-by-id', which handle similar resources differently.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after setting a layout), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many sibling tools in the 'presentation-' group.

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