layout_material_expressions

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

No annotations provided. The description only states it performs auto-layout, but does not disclose if it overwrites existing positions, affects connections, or requires the material to be open. For a tool that modifies graph layout, more behavioral context is needed.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks necessary details, making it insufficiently informative. The conciseness does not fully compensate for missing 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 tool has one parameter with no description, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the contextual completeness is low. It does not cover what happens to the graph, any side effects, or return value (though output schema exists).

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 the description adds no meaning to the 'material_path' parameter. It does not explain the format, expected value, or purpose beyond the schema definition.

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 tool auto-layouts all nodes using Unreal's arrangement algorithm. It specifies the action (auto-layout) and resource (nodes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the material path scope, which is inferred from the parameter. It distinguishes from sibling material tools that focus on adding, connecting, or deleting nodes.

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 build_material_graph or manually arranging nodes. The description lacks context about prerequisites or situations where auto-layout is appropriate.

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