Describe Schematic Layout Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond 'built-in', which only vaguely hints that the specs are predefined rather than user-supplied.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it does not earn more than a middling score.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of information about this tool, yet it says nothing about what the spec description returns or how to select a spec. For a discovery tool this leaves the agent under-equipped.

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, but it never mentions spec_name. The word 'built-in' weakly implies the parameter names a predefined spec, yet there is no mention of valid values, whether it is optional, or what happens if omitted.

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 'Describe a built-in layout spec' essentially restates the tool name (describe_schematic_layout_spec) with no added specificity. It gives a verb and resource but no scope, no indication of what a 'spec' contains, and no differentiation from the sibling apply_schematic_layout_spec.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as apply_schematic_layout_spec or describe_schematic_edit_support. Usage is only faintly implied by the verb 'describe', leaving the agent to infer the context.

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