layout_operation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'thin wrapper' and prerequisites. It does not state that layout operations likely mutate the document, possible side effects, or return behavior. The description lacks crucial behavioral disclosure.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the operation list. Both sentences add valuable information without redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 8 parameters, 5 operations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It provides prerequisites but leaves operation semantics, parameter usage, and return values unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool of this 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 only 13%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions that role targets need analyze_page, and repeats operation names already in the enum. It fails to explain axis, align, gapPt, startPt, marginPt, timeoutSec, or target variants beyond a single mention.

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 identifies the tool as a layout helper with specific operations (align, distribute, center, stack, applyMargins), which immediately conveys its purpose. It also differentiates from sibling tools like execute_batch by noting it's a thin wrapper.

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 advises to prefer execute_batch when combining with other operations, and specifies prerequisites: scan_document is required, and role targets need analyze_page. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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