auto_layout

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

The description discloses specific behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains that pool/lane sizes act as lower bounds, manual coordinates are replaced, disconnected nodes stay with their owner, and message flows route after pool placement. These details align with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, adding value by clarifying exact effects. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Apply deterministic automatic layout') before listing behaviors. It is concise, with no filler, though the list of clauses is a bit packed but still readable.

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 layout tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the essential behaviors and constraints. It explains deterministic behavior, rank ordering, size bounds, coordinate replacement, and routing logic, leaving no ambiguity about what the operation does. The output schema handles return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter 'algorithm' with an enum and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter or its values. Since the schema already covers it, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Apply deterministic automatic layout' with a specific verb and resource. It goes beyond a simple statement to enumerate key behavioral rules (e.g., collaboration processes ranked independently, manual coordinates replaced), making its purpose precise and unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from siblings, none of which perform layout operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. While it implies use for automatic layout, it fails to explicitly state the scenario or contrast with manual layout or other tools.

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