Set a workspace tiling engine (verified)

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool verifies tiledLayout after switching, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, error behavior, or any state changes beyond the layout switch. The description adds some value but leaves out important behavioral details for an unannotated tool.

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: the first states the core action and options, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and the structure is logical and easy to parse. Perfectly concise.

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 setter tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, the parameter semantics, and situational guidance. What is missing is error handling details and explicit side effects, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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 only 50% (workspace has a description, layout does not). The description enumerates the four layout options explicitly, adding semantic meaning to the enum. It also clarifies that workspace defaults to the active workspace, which is not fully stated in the schema's description. This compensates well for the schema 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 description states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('workspace') with the exact options (MCP grid, Hyprland dwindle, master, scrolling) and the verification step ('verify tiledLayout'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning specific use cases for dwindle and omarchy-grid, making the tool's purpose 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use specific layout options ('Use dwindle before layout_preselect/open_window_split; use omarchy-grid for deterministic grids'), which helps an agent decide among the enum values. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling layout tools like layout_mode or layout_grid, though the context is largely implicit. This is good but not exhaustive.

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