layout_scene_nodes_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about whether the command is read-only or mutates the scene, whether it affects node positions, whether it requires specific context, or what side effects it has. The single sentence provides zero behavioral 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?

The description is one sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context, so it fails the 'appropriately sized' criterion. A 2 reflects that while it's not verbose, it's too sparse to be useful.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the command's effect, parameter usage, or when to apply it. For a tool with two optional parameters and a specialized domain, this level of description is inadequate.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (scope, node_path). It gives no hint of what 'scope' means or how 'node_path' is used. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Cinema 4D's native Scene Nodes layout command'), which is more than a tautology. However, it doesn't explain what the layout command actually does (e.g., arranging nodes, repositioning), and it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling 'layout_capsule_graph' or other graph tools. The purpose is recognizable but vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it applies only to Scene Nodes graphs, nor does it point to layout_capsule_graph or any other sibling. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the name, with no help from the description.

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