auto_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the main effect—arranging shapes and re-routing connectors—but does not warn that this may overwrite or destroy manual positioning and routing, nor clarify whether the action is reversible. For a mutating layout operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then a practical usage hint, then a compact note on style values. Each sentence adds value, though the style explanation is slightly cryptic and could have been clearer.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is missing important context: how to target a page, what spacing means, whether resize_page changes the canvas, and full style enum semantics. It is adequate as a high-level summary but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 for all four parameters. It only partially explains the style enum ('flowchart_tb' and the '_lr' suffix) and says nothing about 'page', 'spacing_in', or 'resize_page'. Other enum options like 'radial', 'circular', and 'tree_*' are left unexplained.

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 says exactly what the tool does: 'Run Visio's automatic layout on the page — arranges shapes and re-routes connectors.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like drop_shape or connect_shapes, which do not perform automatic layout.

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 phrase 'Great after dropping shapes at rough positions' provides clear usage context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. It tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, though it does not mention when not to use it.

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