kodi_layout_preview

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

Annotations mark this as not read-only but non-destructive, and the description usefully clarifies that no layout write occurs, which slightly reframes those hints. It does add that rows are 'staged' with expected_revision, implying a concurrency check, but gives no detail on side effects, state, or failure behavior.

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?

It is a single, terse sentence with no padding, which is good. But the leading 'Optional Manager:' fragment is confusing noise and the front-loaded content is cryptic rather than informative, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, a nested, undocumented plan object plus a preview operation that is meant to precede apply/rebuild leave significant gaps: the plan contract and the expected workflow are not explained.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'plan' parameter is an open object with additionalProperties true and no field docs. The description names two keys, section_id and expected_revision, giving a partial hint, but does not explain the plan's structure or required shape, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 name plus the clause 'no layout write' conveys that this stages a preview of section rows without persisting a layout change, which distinguishes it from kodi_layout_apply. However, the cryptic 'Optional Manager:' prefix and 'stage existing section rows' phrasing are vague about the actual operation, and the distinction from kodi_layout_rebuild or kodi_manager_inspect is left to inference.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus kodi_layout_apply or kodi_layout_rebuild. The 'no layout write' note implies it is a safe dry-run step, but the prerequisite relationship to apply/rebuild is only hinted at, not stated.

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