auto_place_module_boxes

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no context about side effects, such as whether existing view boxes are replaced or if there are layout constraints. With minimal annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'auto-place' entails, the resulting behavior, or any limitations. More detail is needed to provide complete context for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention parameters or how they affect auto-placement. Thus, it scores a 3, meeting the baseline.

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 action ('auto-place'), the resource ('module view boxes'), and the context ('around their member variables'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_module_view' which likely sets view geometry manually.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. For instance, it doesn't mention that it should be used after variables are added to a module or that it might overwrite existing view boxes.

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