validate_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool does not push (non-destructive) and lists the validation checks performed. It doesn't detail error handling or return format, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that in the description.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and one sentence for args. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, the parameter input, and what it checks. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the layout must correspond to a device's control schema, but that is implied by 'control schema'.

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 only one parameter, 'layout_json', with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds 'Complete layout JSON string', clarifying what the parameter expects. However, it does not specify that it must be a valid JSON string or mention any constraints like size limits.

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 the verb 'lint' and clearly states the resource 'layout against the control schema'. It explicitly lists what is checked (duplicate ids, unknown control types, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'push_layout' by emphasizing 'WITHOUT pushing'.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to lint a layout without pushing it. This implies it should be used before pushing to validate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for different scenarios.

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