pbi_auto_grid_layout

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

The description states 'pure offline calculation,' implying no side effects or network dependencies. It guarantees non-overlapping results. However, with no annotations provided, the description should disclose more behavioral traits like error handling, input validation, or performance characteristics. The current description is adequate but not thorough.

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 one sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this brevity results in under-specification. Every sentence earns its place, but more structure or detail would improve usability.

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?

The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It does not explain the input format of the 'specs' array or the meaning of other parameters. While an output schema exists (mitigating the need to describe return values), the description still lacks critical context for proper use.

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%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It mentions 'column-based grid' which relates to the 'cols' parameter, but does not explain any other parameters like 'specs', 'gap', or 'start_x'. The description is too brief to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool computes non-overlapping layout coordinates for visual specs on a column-based grid. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other pbi tools like pbi_add_visual or pbi_patch_layout. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'pure offline calculation' but does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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