Get List Layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that results come back ordered ('in order') and that dot-walked columns are rendered as 'field.field', which is return-shape information an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and table name front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral details that matter. Nothing is wasted and no padding is present.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so adequately by stating the columns are ordered and dot-walked fields use 'field.field' notation. Minor gaps remain — nothing about what happens when the table or view has no list record, or about the response envelope — but for a simple 3-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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%, with both 'table' and 'view' documented including the default-view fallback, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces the view-scoping concept and adds no syntax beyond what the schema states; the dot-walk note describes output, not input parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a table's list columns (sys_ui_list) for a view,' naming the underlying table and the scoping dimension. 'List columns ... for a view' implicitly separates it from get_form_layout and the setter set_list_layout, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource itself — an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to set_list_layout and the list-view analogue of get_form_layout. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of the setter alternative, and no prerequisites such as needing the view to exist.

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