check_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only analysis tool ('Analyze', 'Returns warnings'), details the specific output categories, and explains that suggestions consider cascading conflicts. This goes beyond basic annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of warning types, and a closing usage paragraph. Every section provides necessary information without superfluous text, and it is front-loaded with the core 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned. It does so comprehensively, listing warning categories and detailing suggestion types. It also provides usage context and references sibling tools, making it complete for an analysis tool with low parameter complexity.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (filePath and pageIndex). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze a draw.io diagram for layout issues.' It enumerates four concrete warning types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_layout (which applies layout) and update_element (which fixes issues).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this after building/modifying a diagram to detect readability problems.' It also names the follow-up action, 'Use the suggestions to fix issues via update_element,' clarifying its role relative to sibling tools.

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