layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses placement behavior—the block stays where the first item is, or moves to `at`/`to`, and connectors follow—but does not explain the `preview` flag, document mutation semantics, permissions, or reversibility.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers in item, gap, alignment, and placement semantics. It is dense but avoids filler, though its length is substantial given the compact parameter list.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a useful mental model of item grouping and placement. However, it leaves several parameters and behavioral details (preview, doc_id, columns, return/error behavior) incomplete.

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% for 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `items`, `gap`, `align`, `at`, `to`, `horizontal`, `vertical`, and `margin` meaningfully, but omits `columns`, `preview`, and `doc_id`, leaving important parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific action and resource: arranging items in a row, column, or grid with gaps, and clarifies that coordinate math is not needed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like align, grid, or plot, but the core operation is clear.

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?

Usage is implied through the explanation of how items move and how placement is controlled, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as align or grid. The phrase 'no coordinate maths needed' hints at a use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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