Auto Layout

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

The description and annotations provide minimal behavioral details. No indication of how the grid is computed, whether existing positions are overridden, or what the output is. Annotations only have 'openWorldHint: false', which does not add behavior context.

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 overly brief (one sentence) and under-specified. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less helpful. A short description should still capture key behavioral aspects.

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 given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema. It does not explain behavior like whether it affects all visuals or only those on the specified page, what the grid layout algorithm does, or what happens to existing margins. The sibling list shows many layout tools, but this one is not contextualized.

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 low (20%): only 'pageId' has a description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond listing defaults. 'columns', 'padding', 'marginTop', 'marginLeft' are 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Auto-arrange all visuals on a page in a grid.' It uses a specific verb (arrange) and resource (visuals on a page), but does not differentiate from the similar sibling 'pbir_layout_grid'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or excluded conditions. The one-sentence description provides no usage direction.

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