auto_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, persistency, or reversibility. '自动布局图表元素' only states the action and does not reveal whether it mutates the diagram, requires specific permissions, or has any behavioral nuances.

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 phrase with no filler words, making it very concise. It sacrifices depth for brevity, but as a structure, it is efficient and 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (four parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is insufficient. It fails to communicate what the tool returns, how it behaves, or what effects it has on the diagram, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 '自动布局图表元素' clearly states the tool auto-layouts diagram elements with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like connect_elements or update_style, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope.

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 other layout-related tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextualizing its use case.

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