bed_layout

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already signal mutation. However, the description adds no context about what gets changed, whether objects are moved, resized, or potentially overlapping, or if any placement constraints apply. The one-line description offers no additional behavioral disclosure.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While extremely brief, it is not merely a tautology and earns a good score for concision, though it sacrifices detail.

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 tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how the grid is computed, how margins and bed dimensions interact, what constitutes a valid object_names list, or what the output/result is beyond repositioning objects. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the lack of input semantics and behavioral details.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'object_names' lists the objects to arrange, but does not explain margin_mm, bed_width_mm, or bed_height_mm, nor does it mention that they have defaults. The term 'grid' suggests layout behavior, but parameter meanings remain largely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb 'susun' (arrange) with a clear resource (objects) and scope (grid on print bed), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like align_objects or distribute_objects, but the grid+print bed context makes it fairly distinct.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with similar layout-related tools, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name and description alone.

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