auto_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is largely effective: it discloses the algorithm, the v5 shared-layout behavior, and explicitly excluded elements. Minor gap: it does not state whether changes are persisted or the operation is reversible.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and then add a useful but slightly cryptic v5 note. All sentences contribute, though the version-specific wording could be clearer for new users.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, the description covers main behavior and exclusions, but omits what the tool returns and whether it modifies the source in-place. Without an output schema, that missing confirmation leaves a gap.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already explains the source parameter variants thoroughly. The description adds nothing about the source parameter, matching the schema-only baseline.

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?

Purpose is unambiguous: auto-arranges entities by relationships, explicitly naming the dagre-LR algorithm. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating what is not moved (reference copies, notes, waypoints).

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 through the verb 'auto-arranges' but no explicit when/when-not is provided. The v5 note about the removed 'view' parameter is historical context, not usage guidance, and no alternative tool is referenced.

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