map_arrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that nodes are arranged but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting manual positions, impact on connections, scope (current sheet vs. all sheets), reversibility, or return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tight sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'auto-arrange' captures the verb, 'all nodes' defines the scope, and 'grid or circle layout' lists the options. It is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (side effects, scope) and the absence of any context about when to use it relative to siblings leaves gaps. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (layout) with an enum and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description simply repeats the enum values ('grid or circle') without adding new meaning, such as default behavior or how the layout is determined. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Auto-arrange all nodes in a grid or circle layout.' It identifies the specific verb ('arrange'), the resource ('all nodes'), and the layout options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like map_suggest_layout, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the action itself. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., map_suggest_layout), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion cases. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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