suggest_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, required permissions). The lack of behavioral details makes it harder for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 very concise (one sentence, 10 words). While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail. The sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the tool definition would benefit from a bit more information.

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 relatively simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'layout pattern' is, what the output of the recommendation looks like, or how the constraints parameter modifies the result. This lack of completeness could lead to misuse.

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 description coverage is only 50% (the constraints object lacks a top-level description). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; e.g., it does not explain the role of constraints or how they influence the recommendation. The description's mention of 'given description' only covers the first parameter.

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 it recommends the best Adaptive Card layout pattern based on a description. The verb 'recommend' and resource 'Adaptive Card layout pattern' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_card or optimize_card, which may also involve layout decisions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_card or transform_card. The description does not indicate any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where suggestion is preferred.

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