Layout Builder List

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: layouts aren't readable over JSON:API, so this returns display config instead of a 404. That explains the return semantics, but it omits permissions, pagination, and scoping behavior that a no-annotation mutation/read tool should disclose.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The JSON:API caveat earns its place by explaining the tool's existence, though the phrasing is slightly wordy ('but the display config that switches Layout Builder on for a bundle is').

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 exists, so return values are partly covered, but the two input parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. For a listing tool whose entire job is filtering which displays are enabled, leaving bundle and entity_type undefined is a meaningful completeness gap.

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% for both parameters, and the description never mentions 'bundle' or 'entity_type'. An agent cannot tell from either source what these parameters do or that entity_type defaults to 'node' and bundle filters scope. The description fails to compensate for the zero coverage.

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+resource: reporting which entity view displays have Layout Builder enabled. It also distinguishes itself from the other layout_builder_* tools by noting it returns display config rather than layouts. The differentiation is real but phrased indirectly ('see the other layout_builder_* tools') rather than naming the sibling.

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 agent can infer usage from 'Report which entity view displays have Layout Builder enabled', and the note about layouts not being JSON:API-readable implies this is the read path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. layout_builder_get), so guidance is only implied.

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