compose_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful output traits (imports, semantic structure, skip navigation), which is more than a bare restatement, but it omits failure modes, permission/auth needs, or what happens when a component name is unknown.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. Every clause earns its place by adding scope or output detail.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully sketches the return artifact ('a full page with imports, semantic structure, and skip navigation'). It is still thin on edge cases and on the relationship between component_names and the framework's expected output.

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% and the enum for framework is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that component_names must match registry keys), so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('page layout') and scopes the source ('previously generated components in the registry'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-component sibling generate_component. It stops short of naming or directly contrasting with any sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'previously generated components in the registry' implies a precondition (components must already exist before composing), which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no mention of what to do if components are missing, and no routing to siblings such as generate_component.

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