layout.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists elements, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all elements at once or paginates, what format the output is in, or any permissions required. The description is minimal and lacks context on how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('List all layout elements') and adds necessary scope details. There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does and the parameter's role, but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, or usage context. For a list operation, this is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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%, with the single parameter 'screenId' documented as optional and specifying default behavior ('uses current screen if not provided'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('layout elements'), specifying scope ('on the current or specified screen'). It distinguishes from other layout tools like layout.get or layout.search by focusing on listing all elements, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like nodes.list or html.list in terms of resource type. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to prefer layout.list over layout.search or layout.get, nor does it indicate prerequisites or context for use. Usage is implied by the action and resource, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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