layout_capsule_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'request native layout' but does not disclose what layout computation entails, whether it mutates anything, what preconditions exist, or what 'native' means in contrast to other tools. This is a significant gap for a tool that orchestrates graph 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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action ('Request native layout'). It is concise but may be too terse, leaving out valuable context.

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?

The tool has 3 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and this description explains none of the parameters or behavior.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for graph_target, scope, and node_path Ess. The description gives no parameter guidance, forcing agents to guess the shape of graph_target and meaning of scope/node_path. The phrase 'one exact Capsule instance graph' faintly implies graph_target is an identifier, but it does not explain the required object structure, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('request'), resource ('native layout'), and target ('one exact Capsule instance graph'), which distinguishes it from broader tools like layout_scene_nodes_graph. It is not a tautology and gives a clearer picture than a generic 'layout capsule graph' would.

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 siblings like inspect_capsule_graph, layout_scene_nodes_graph, or focus_capsule_graph. The phrase 'one exact' implies specificity, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it or what it is not for.

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