Layout Builder Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: it returns enabled/overridable flags plus sections, layout plugins, regions and components, and it distinguishes its backing source from the non-existent JSON:API resource. It does not mention permissions or read-only semantics, but for a clearly-labeled read operation this is solid transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return shape. The final sentence about the JSON:API resource is slightly awkward ('that does not exist') but still earns its place by clarifying the data source.

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?

An output schema already exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, and it sensibly summarizes them anyway. Combined with the data-source note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only valid parameter values are missing.

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%, so both required parameters are undocumented in the schema, yet the description only restates them as 'an entity type and bundle' without supplying valid-value examples, format, or how they map to layout storage. It adds little beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read the Layout Builder layout for an entity type and bundle') and immediately scopes what it returns. An agent can distinguish it from layout_builder_list and layout_builder_sections_list, which enumerate other things.

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 clarifies the data source ('reads the real view display rather than the JSON:API resource'), which implies when this tool is the right choice, but it never names a sibling or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition against layout_builder_list or layout_builder_sections_list. Usage is only implied.

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