map_suggest_layout

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the tool mutates node positions in-place, a key side effect. It also mentions determinism with seed for force-directed layout, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not specify the scope of mutation (all nodes vs current selection) or any performance implications.

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 only two sentences and every word carries information. It front-loads the main purpose, lists alternatives concisely, and concludes with the critical side-effect. Zero filler or repetition of schema details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, algorithm choices, and in-place mutation. It is contextually adequate for a layout tool. The only notable gap is the absence of information about what happens to the existing positions of nodes not affected (e.g., does it run on all nodes or only selected?) and any expected return value, but these are partially implied by the tool's nature.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining what each algorithm does (e.g., 'horizontal lanes per node type' for cluster-by-type, 'BFS components → separate zones' for cluster-by-connection). It also notes that force-directed is 'organic, deterministic with seed', enriching the bare 'force' enum value. This pushes the score above 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 performs smart auto-layout with three specific algorithms (force-directed, cluster-by-type, cluster-by-connection), each with a brief behavior description. It also distinguishes itself from map_arrange (naive grid/circle), making the unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly names map_arrange as an alternative and contrasts this tool as 'smart' vs 'naive', giving clear context on when to choose this over map_arrange. It also describes the three algorithm options with enough detail to guide selection, though it does not provide explicit when-not scenarios or prerequisite conditions beyond that.

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