get_layout_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. "Read" and the pre-writing framing imply a side-effect-free retrieval, and "complete sample edition" hints that a substantial document comes back, but it does not state whether the content is static, large, or cacheable. With an output schema present, the return shape is covered elsewhere, so the remaining gap is modest.

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 short sentences, with the content statement first and the call trigger second – well front-loaded and free of waste. It is arguably too clipped: the first sentence is a fragment with no verb, which costs a little immediate parseability.

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?

A zero-argument read tool with an output schema is a simple case, and the description plus the schema covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. The only absent piece is any sense of size or caching of the returned guide, which is a minor omission given the output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing about inputs to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate arguments.

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 names the resource precisely – layout rules plus a complete sample edition – which is specific enough that an agent knows what it gets back. It reads as a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other siblings, but the pair of nouns is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

"Read before writing an edition" is an explicit, actionable precondition that tells the agent exactly when to call this. It gives no exclusions or mentions of alternatives, but for a prerequisite-reading tool the positive condition is the only one that matters.

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