vision_layout

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says it analyzes and returns structured JSON, implying a read-only operation, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it calls an external model, latency/cost implications, or any side effects. The output shape is lightly previewed, but key behavioral traits are missing.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and result shape with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It partially covers the return structure but does not clarify how to supply the image (URL vs. path vs. base64+mime_type), whether any parameters are required, or what calling the tool implies operationally.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (task, model, image_url, mime_type, image_path, image_base64). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('image's layout structure') and even previews the return structure (canvas, elements, relations), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like vision_ocr or vision_reconstruct, but the 'layout structure' focus is fairly distinct.

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 siblings such as vision_inspect, vision_ocr, or vision_reconstruct. It also omits prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how to choose among the image input parameters.

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