layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (rack plan and site plan with details) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or prerequisites beyond the sequence. It adds value by describing the return format but lacks some transparency.

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 two sentences: the first defines the function and return, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 complexity (nested input, no output schema), the description explains the return but does not detail how inputs affect outputs. The duplication of 'siteAreaSqm' between top-level and nested 'design' could cause confusion. Sibling tools are mentioned, but the description could be more complete.

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 coverage is 67%; the description adds context for the 'design' parameter by noting 'Same fields as the design tool — drives hall sizing.' For 'siteAreaSqm' and 'siteCentroid,' the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description offers marginal value.

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 generates rack and site layout plans, specifying what each plan includes (hall dimensions, row/column grid, per-rack positions and kW for rack plan; block-level layout in percentage coordinates for site plan). It also distinguishes from sibling tools 'design' and 'validate' by stating 'Use this AFTER design + validate'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this AFTER design + validate, when you need the physical layout,' which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied sequence.

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