Disposition Chains Layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about output format (computed layout coordinates), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 with a clear purpose statement, group and cost note, and an example. The structure is front-loaded and efficient, though the example could be integrated better.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description only gives a brief purpose and an example. It lacks details on output format, what disposition chains are, and how layout coordinates are computed. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters individually. The example request body provides an indirect hint but lacks systematic documentation. With 11 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 returns disposition chains with computed x/y layout coordinates for graph visualization. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from similar tools like 'disposition_chains' by emphasizing layout computation.

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?

An example request is provided, showing typical usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disposition_chains', nor does it list exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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