push_layout

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

Discloses immediate rendering, feedback on success/rejection, and fallback to broadcast. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention destructive potential or authorization requirements.

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?

Description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently structures additional behavior details in separate paragraphs. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (1 param, output schema present), the description covers behavior and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could mention output schema or error handling.

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?

Adds meaning to the single parameter layout_json by stating it must be a complete LayoutConfig, but does not explain the format or provide examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates somewhat.

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 states the action (push) and resource (layout) with target (paired device). It distinguishes from siblings like push_buffer, but does not explicitly differentiate from other layout-related tools like save_layout or get_device_layout.

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?

Provides context on behavior for single vs. no paired device (fallback to broadcast), but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like save_layout or validate_layout.

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