Layout Builder Sections List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (layout plugin per section; region, plugin id, and weight per component), but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or what happens when a bundle has no layout or only a default layout.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the second sentence cleanly describing the return contents. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description partially duplicates that anyway. For a two-required-parameter read tool with no annotations, the missing entity_type/bundle semantics are the notable gap; otherwise it is adequate.

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 (bundle, entity_type), so the schema offers no help. The description only obliquely references 'a bundle' and never explains the entity_type parameter or the expected machine-name format, leaving the parameter contract largely undocumented.

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 (list) and resource (sections in a bundle's Layout Builder layout), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like layout_builder_list and layout_builder_get. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 implies its usage (inspecting the section/component structure of a layout) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no pointer to alternative tools such as layout_builder_get or layout_builder_list. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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