Arrange network layout

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing exactly what the tool does and does not do: 'Only moves node positions — it never adds, deletes, or rewires nodes.' It also states the return value (COMP path and number repositioned), providing full behavioral transparency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

All parameters are documented in schema, and the description covers behavior, return value, and limitations. Given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is complete and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: explains the effect of each parameter (e.g., recursive arranges nested COMPs, include_docked moves docked DATs) and provides a path example. This justifies a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Tidy an existing network: reposition a COMP's children into a readable left→right data-flow layout'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it only moves positions and does not add, delete, or rewire nodes, which is unique among layout-related siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to clean up nodes that are piled on top of each other.' It also explains the recursive option for nested COMPs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, though the context is clear enough.

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