imgui_get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only inspection, whether it reflects live layout or last-rendered frame, what coordinate space the bounding boxes are in (screen, window-local, DPI-scaled), or the return structure. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and core purpose. Efficient and readable. Loses a point only because it doesn't use the available space to add usage or behavioral context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must clarify what is returned. It says 'with their bounding boxes' but doesn't specify the bounding box format, whether coordinates are absolute or relative, or whether visibility state factors in. For a tool whose whole value is the returned layout data, this is incomplete.

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%, with the single 'window' parameter already documented as 'Window identifier'. The description references 'a window' consistent with the schema, but adds no semantic detail beyond it—no format requirements, no validity rules, no behavior for non-existent windows. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states 'Get the layout of all widgets in a window with their bounding boxes' which is a specific verb+resource (get layout widgets in window) with a clear scope (all widgets, bounding boxes). It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_get_widget_rect (single widget rect) and imgui_get_window_rect, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_get_widget_rect, imgui_get_window_rect, or imgui_get_state. The description doesn't note whether this is diagnostic/inspection only, or whether it reflects current rendered state. Context of when this is appropriate (e.g., after layout computation vs. before) is absent.

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