layout_network

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

No annotations are available, leaving the description responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., permanent position changes), whether the graph is cooked, or the exact scope of 'children'. The simple action verb is there but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and remains easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description provides a minimum viable definition. However, it lacks usage context, alternatives, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it in varied situations.

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?

The schema has one parameter ('path') with 0% coverage, so the description must clarify its meaning. It does imply the path refers to the network node, but it does not specify the path format, whether it supports wildcards, or any constraints. This is minimal compensation.

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 identifies the action ('Auto-layout'), the target ('all children of a network node'), and the outcome ('for a tidy graph'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'layout_children' by specifying 'network node' as the context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives like 'layout_children'. The description only states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary information.

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