layout_children

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

The description discloses that it manually calls setPosition, is portable across Houdini versions, and returns a dict with specific fields. However, it does not mention side effects on existing child positions, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. With no annotations, this is moderate transparency but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, bullet-point parameter explanations, and a returns note. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, especially given the sparse schema. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return dict and parameter details well, but lacks usage context, why choose this over layout_network, and any caveats or examples. It is serviceable but not comprehensive.

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%, but the description compensates well: it explains all parameters except ctx, providing defaults (horizontal_spacing=2.0, vertical_spacing=1.5, direction='horizontal'), types (parent_path is PR9 recommendation, parent is alias), and precedence rules. It omits ctx, which is a required param, but the rest are well documented.

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 tool's purpose: '布局父节点下的子节点' (layout children under a parent node) with a specific implementation detail ('按间距参数手动 setPosition') that distinguishes it from other layout tools like layout_network. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., layout_network). It provides parameter precedence (parent_path over parent) and backward compatibility, but no context for choosing this tool over others. This is a significant gap given layout-related siblings.

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