arrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format, the role of gap/pad/cols, and notes the results are baked in as editable normal elements. It does not detail error behaviors, but for a pure computation tool the description is transparent enough.

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 bit long but front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with useful details. Every sentence adds value; minor verbosity around 'bake them in' and 'spread them across' is acceptable.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, return shape, and key parameter semantics. It does not address edge cases like insufficient space, but for the tool's scope it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains gap, pad, and cols (including default), and mentions layout types. The description adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not detail the layout parameter's variants beyond naming them.

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 computes aligned child boxes within a bounding box for grid/row/column layouts, with a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('count aligned child boxes'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_element or update_element by focusing on layout computation rather than direct manipulation.

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 explains the tool is for placing cells 'by intent instead of hand-computing pixels', giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient and does not mislead.

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