layout

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe, non-networked read/state operation, so the bar is lower. The gloss on title blocks, viewports, notes and parts lists adds genuine domain context, but nothing is said about whether switching persists, whether a drawing must be open, or what the list returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action first and the clarifying parenthetical after it. The parenthetical is long but it is the only elaboration and it carries real information.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, almost nothing an agent needs is missing. The only gap is that the description never says what the listing form yields (layout names), which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts 'Model' or a paper-space layout name and that omission lists layouts. The description adds no format, casing, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb pair ('switch between' / 'list') and the exact resource (model space and paper-space layouts), plus a useful gloss on what a paper-space layout contains. An agent knows what this does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like 'layers' or 'open_drawing'.

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 'or list the layouts' branch implies two modes, and the schema makes the trigger explicit ('omit to list them'), but the description itself gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as 'inspect' or 'open_drawing'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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