fm_get_layout_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a metadata retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could impact agent decision-making.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers what the tool does but leaves gaps around authentication requirements, return format, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The description meets minimum viability but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description ('レイアウト名' - layout name). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema documentation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does reinforce that the layout parameter is for specifying which layout's metadata to retrieve.

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 clearly states the action ('取得します' - retrieves) and the resources (field definitions, portal information, value lists) for a specified layout. It distinguishes this from general layout listing tools like 'fm_get_layouts' by specifying metadata retrieval rather than just listing layouts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other metadata tools like 'fm_export_database_metadata'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a valid session), when this is appropriate versus using 'fm_get_layouts' for basic layout information, or how it differs from 'fm_export_database_metadata' which might provide broader metadata. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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