add_horizontal_box_to_widget

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action and parameters, but it does not describe potential side effects such as whether the tool edits the widget graph in place, requires recompilation, or how it behaves if the box name already exists. The description gives a positive use case and a KB link, but it lacks deeper behavioral context beyond the core addition.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core action, includes a brief use-case explanation, lists parameters with clear explanations, provides a KB reference, and gives a concrete example. The chapter reference ('From Ch. 11') adds context but is marginally tangential; overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (6 parameters, with defaults and an output schema), the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly: it explains all parameters, gives an example, and references a KB entry. It does not explicitly cover edge cases (e.g., widget existence, duplicate names), but the core usage is well covered. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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%, leaving the description as the sole source of parameter meaning. The description provides an Args list that explicitly explains all six parameters: widget_name, box_name, position, size, anchor_preset, and size_to_content. Each meaning is clear, and defaults are implied or stated. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Add a Horizontal Box layout container to a Widget Blueprint.' It explains what a Horizontal Box does ('arranges child widgets horizontally') and distinguishes it from siblings like add_vertical_box_to_widget by stating the horizontal arrangement and use case ('side-by-side text + values'). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from similar layout tools.

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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Used for side-by-side text + values.' This gives context for when to use the tool)Skip to content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, unlike the highest calibration score which names sibling alternatives. The KB reference and example further help, but exclusions are absent.

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