keyboard_layout

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the purpose and parameter values but does not mention any behavioral traits such as idempotency, caching, error handling, or required network access. The description is lacking in this dimension.

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 concise with a single clear sentence followed by a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the parameter list could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the necessary information: purpose and allowed parameter values. It could elaborate on what the output contains, but it is largely complete given the tool's scope.

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 only shows the 'layout' parameter with a default but no enum values. The description adds meaningful detail by listing allowed layout values: 'us', 'uk', 'de', 'fr', 'es', 'it'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Get keyboard layout reference showing key positions and characters.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'keyboard layout reference' are specific, and no sibling tool appears to have similar functionality, distinguishing it well.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving keyboard layouts, but it does not address alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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