audit_layout

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the emitted codes TAP-SMALL, OVERLAP and CLIPPED, the overlap threshold (more than a third of the smaller control), the default Material tap guidance of 48, and the important exclusion of full-bleed wrappers. This is unusually rich disclosure of what the tool detects and why.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then codes, then the wrapper exclusion rationale. Every line carries information, though the multi-line formatting is slightly more expansive than strictly necessary for three checks.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the report codes an agent will receive, which is the key missing piece. The only gap is the unexplained 'device' parameter, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke and interpret this diagnostic tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for min_tap_dp (defines the below-threshold condition and cites Material's 48) and check_clip (node extending past the viewport), but the 'device' parameter is never explained anywhere, leaving one of three params 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?

States a precise verb+resource: it audits layout, enumerating exactly what it checks (tap-target sizes, overlaps, off-screen elements) and what diagnostic codes it reports. An agent can distinguish this from screenshot/screen_tree/tap siblings purely from the description.

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?

Usage is implied through the checks performed and the conditional 'with check_clip CLIPPED' phrasing, which hints when clipping detection activates. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over screen_tree or screenshot, nor any when-not guidance.

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