pane_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed world. The description adds useful context by naming the returned data (rects and split tree), which goes beyond safety annotations, but it does not explain permissions, freshness, or other behavioral traits.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose and use case are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple read-only geometry tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description gives enough context to understand what is returned and why an agent would call it. It is only slightly incomplete regarding parameter semantics and sibling differentiation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description says nothing about the sole parameter, pane_id. Although the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory and required, the description does not compensate for the missing 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 states a specific resource and result: the geometry of the tab containing a pane, including rects and the split tree. It clearly distinguishes this as a layout-inspection tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like pane_split or pane_get.

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 'Use it to pick a split direction' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over pane_split, pane_get, or pane_list, nor any stated prerequisites.

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