layout_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior (does nothing when auto-layout is disabled) and implies it modifies node positions, but it does not mention whether the layout is destructive, reversible, or affects all children. Lacks details on side effects or return 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?

The description is exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose, a conditional note, and a structured args list. Every element earns its place, with the purpose front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It includes the critical env-var condition. It does not mention return values or prerequisites, but for a straightforward layout tool this is nearly 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 explicitly explains both parameters: parent_path as 'Parent network path' and spacing as 'Spacing multiplier between nodes', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. This is adequate though terse.

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 'Auto-layout children of a network node' – a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from manual node manipulation tools like move_node or set_node_position, though it does not detail what 'layout' entails beyond arranging children.

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 only usage guidance is the conditional note about the FXHOUDINIMCP_AUTO_LAYOUT=0 env variable, which tells when it does nothing. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like manual positioning, nor provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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