auto_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithmic behavior: topological layering, successor inheritance, symmetrical distribution. However, it does not explicitly state whether existing positions are overwritten or mention any side effects, so slightly less than perfect.

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 compact yet informative: first sentence states action, followed by algorithmic details, usage context, and a clear parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown but existence noted). The description explains the algorithm and when to call it, which is sufficient for this layout tool. No missing critical information.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters, including defaults and units (canvas units, coordinates). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare 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's purpose: to re-layout the entire net using topological left-to-right layering. It explains the algorithm and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all element addition/connection tools, so no confusion.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after building the complete net when the automatic cursor placement produced a cluttered or overlapping layout,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but siblings are unrelated, so it's acceptable.

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