Get Form Layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result: an ordered sequence of field names interleaved with .begin_split/.split/.end_split markers and .formatter.<sys_id> tokens, and that it returns exactly one section. It does not mention auth/instance fallback behavior or whether missing sections error or return empty.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the discovery hint. The middle clause listing split tokens is dense and jargon-heavy but each token carries meaning for the caller; there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so at a useful level of detail (ordered element sequence with split and formatter markers). What is missing is any statement of container/nesting semantics or behavior when the section id is invalid, which for a layout-read tool is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the floor. The description goes further by explaining what the required `section` id actually is (a sys_ui_section record) and how to obtain it, which the schema only states as 'The sys_ui_section sys_id'.

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 and resource: 'Read one form section's layout (sys_ui_section)', and enumerates what the layout contains (field names, split directives, formatter references). An agent can tell this apart from set_form_layout (write) and get_list_layout (list views) from the name and the sys_ui_section anchor, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 second sentence gives concrete prerequisite guidance: find the required section sys_id via query_table on sys_ui_section with name = table and view. That is a genuine routing instruction to a sibling tool. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this (e.g., when you want the whole form or a list layout).

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