Generate flow path waypoints and suggested element placements for the current canvas from a visual flow goal, such as left-to-right reading or circular focus.
Return flow path waypoints and suggested element placement for the current canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | Visual flow goal. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Although 'Return' implies a read-style suggestion operation, the description does not state whether it modifies the canvas, adds guides, or affects existing layout — nor does it describe the return shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned waypoints and placement suggestions mean and whether they are applied automatically. It leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool confidently in this dense sibling set.
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 single 'goal' parameter is fully documented with enum values in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how the goal affects the returned waypoints, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return flow path waypoints and suggested element placement') and scopes it to 'the current canvas'. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as design_add_flow_lines or design_suggest_focal_points.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The only contextual cue is 'for the current canvas', which implies scope but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.