layout_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention that layout will likely modify node positions (a side effect) or whether the operation is reversible, which is important for an agent to assess impact.

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 that gets straight to the point without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's core purpose, though additional detail could be added elsewhere.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the meaning of node_path or any behavioral side effects, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation. The overall context is incomplete despite the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 input schema has one parameter 'node_path' with no description (schema coverage 0%), and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent is left to infer what path means, its scope (e.g., parent node path), and how it affects layout, which is a significant gap.

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 'Auto-layout child nodes in the network editor' is specific with a clear verb (auto-layout) and resource (child nodes) plus context (network editor). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_children or move_node, making the tool's intent 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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the verb 'auto-layout', but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or discussion of alternative approaches (e.g., manual arrangement or layout via other commands).

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