create_custom_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '创建' (create) implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify whether this creates a persistent layout, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the layout already exists, or what the expected output format is. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive parameter documentation in the schema.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'custom layout' actually is in this context, what format it creates, whether it's persistent, or what happens after creation. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema without understanding the broader behavioral context of layout creation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions '可以指定指标名称、参数名和参数值' (can specify indicator name, parameter names, and parameter values), which maps to three of the five parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 verb ('创建自定义布局' - create custom layout) and the resources involved (specifying indicator names, parameter names, and parameter values). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_chart_panel' by focusing on layout creation rather than chart panel creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential layout tools that might exist.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other tools like 'create_chart_panel', or any context about what constitutes a 'custom layout' in this system. The agent must infer usage from the parameter descriptions alone.

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