list_mobile_layouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the important caveat that results are mapping rows rather than complete layout definitions and explains the historical name, but it omits pagination behavior and what the mappings contain.

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 tight sentences, with the critical semantic caveat front-loaded. The naming note is short and earns its place; 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?

The description corrects the misleading name and states that the tool returns mapping rows, which is important. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, it leaves material gaps about what fields are returned and how screen_sys_id scopes the result.

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 0%, and the description never mentions either parameter. An agent cannot tell from the definition whether screen_sys_id filters results or what limit defaults to.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('sys_sg_screen_m2m_ui_element mappings'), and explicitly disambiguates the misleading tool name from full mobile layout definitions. It does not name a sibling alternative, but an agent can tell what this tool returns.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative. The caveat that these are not complete layout definitions implies create_mobile_layout may be relevant, but the agent must infer that routing.

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