fgui_set_list_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the version requirement, the save/external_reload dependency, and the close-reopen-then-recompare verification cycle. It does not state what happens to unlisted layout fields, whether changes are reversible, or permission requirements, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 purpose leads, followed by a dense but useful enumeration of supported fields and trailing notes on external_reload and strength. There is minimal filler, though the field list is long enough that it could be organized more crisply.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description thoroughly documents the nested 'fields' payload, which is the hard part of this tool. The main remaining gap is the undocumented object-identification and verify/save parameters, a minor omission given their conventional naming.

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 0% and 'fields' is an opaque additionalProperties object, so the enumerated field names and enum values (layout modes, selectionMode, overflow, margin format) add real value beyond the schema. But five of seven top-level parameters (save, verify, object_id, object_name, object_path) are never explained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (修改/set) and a precise resource (List 对象的布局与滚动属性), and it contrasts naturally with the sibling fgui_set_group_layout, which targets a different container type. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives a version gate (0.8.8+) and a conditional rule ('external_reload=True 需 save=True'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over fgui_set_property or fgui_set_group_layout, nor any exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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