auto_mobile_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains what gets included (slicers, KPI cards, tables, charts) and what gets skipped (decorative shapes, tiny deltas, sparklines), and specifies the canvas width (320-wide). This reveals selective behavior beyond a simple 'generate' statement, providing useful context about its operation.

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 three sentences, each adding value: the action, the behavior details, and a reassurance ('sensible', 'one call', 'ground-truthed'). There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema/annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the layout behavior and visual selection criteria. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but for a layout generation tool this is acceptable given its simplicity.

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 two parameters (reportSessionId and pageName) with 0% coverage in the description. The description mentions 'for a page' which clarifies pageName's role, but does not explain reportSessionId. Since the parameter names are self-explanatory and the description provides some page context, it partially compensates; however, it doesn't fully clarify the session ID parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Auto-generate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a phone (mobile) layout for a page'. It further details the action by describing what it does with visuals (stacks them vertically, skips certain types), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'set_mobile_position' or 'auto_arrange'.

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 implies a one-call solution for creating a mobile layout, saying 'A sensible mobile view in one call', which suggests using this tool when you want a quick automated layout. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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