origin_layers_arrange

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important behavior: a grid too small is refused because it would omit a layer. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether it returns a success/error object, or what the resulting grid layout implies for existing layers. Partial but not complete.

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 succinct, with the primary action front-loaded and a relevant constraint in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes; there is no fluff. Slightly reduces score because it does not hint at parameter meaning, but the structure itself is clean.

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 three required parameters with zero schema documentation, and no output schema details provided to the agent, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how rows/columns map to the grid, what the 'graph' identifier refers to, or the tool's effect on existing layers. The single constraint is helpful but overall the agent lacks enough context to call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the tool description provides no meaning for 'rows', 'columns', or 'graph'. An agent cannot infer likely data types (graph is presumably a reference, rows/columns positive integers), units, or acceptable ranges. This is a significant gap that prevents correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 the action (lay out) and the resource (a graph's layers) as a grid of panels. It distinguishes the tool from siblings that export, create, or set graph properties, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The exclusion of the 'too small' case adds specificity, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other graph manipulation tools like origin_plot, origin_layer_add, or origin_axis_set. The description does not mention common scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., graph exists), or exclusions. A single sentence about the refusal condition hints at a constraint but does not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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