Read window layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to carry the safety burden. It still adds useful context with 'no undo step' and field-level semantics like infoPanel being the docking bar holding the property sheet. It stops short of describing permission needs or side effects on the UI.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then a single packed sentence enumerating fields, closed by a brief safety note. No sentence is wasted.

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 rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete for a zero-parameter read tool. The only notable omission is routing guidance relative to rillsoft_window_layout_apply.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The empty input schema is fully documented, and the description correctly focuses on returned state rather than inventing parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('window state'), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rillsoft_window_layout_apply, so it falls short of a 5.

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 read-only nature and 'get' naming imply use for inspecting layout state, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as the apply tool. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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