Add Layout Table

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that max_rows caps features and position/size are in mm, but omits behaviors like return values, error conditions (e.g., missing layer), or what happens when table exceeds layout bounds.

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 efficient sentences with no fluff. Could be slightly more structured with parameter details, but still 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 tool with 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks essential information about required parameters (layout_name, layer_id) and behavior, making it insufficient for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only explains max_rows and vaguely mentions position/size, but does not map to specific parameters (x, y, width, height) or explain layer_id, layout_name, or defaults.

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 adds an attribute table for a vector layer to a print layout, distinguishing it from sibling layout tools (e.g., add_layout_legend). The verb 'Add' and resource are specific.

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 implies usage context (adding a table to a layout) but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor alternatives. It mentions max_rows caps features, which is a usage hint, but no explicit exclusions.

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