validate_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the return shape (validity, violations, material metrics) and the fact that validation is independent, but omits whether it is read-only, whether it fails or returns a report on invalid layouts, and any performance/IO characteristics.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and the objects it operates on. Every clause earns its place, and the return values are tacked on efficiently.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more. It names the return fields but leaves out prerequisites, error behavior, and path semantics, leaving an agent with only a viable minimum for a 3-param tool.

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 33%, and the description only loosely implies the three required params (layout file, library, request). It adds no syntax, format, or path semantics beyond what the schema partially provides, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check a layout file against the library parts, sheets and spacing of a request'), and names a distinguishing trait ('the independent validator') that separates it from nesting siblings like nest or estimate_sheets.

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?

Usage is implied by 'against ... a request' and 'independent validator', suggesting post-nest verification, but the description never says when to call it versus siblings like estimate_sheets or export_layout, nor any preconditions. No explicit exclusions.

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