suggest_mode_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Pure knowledge — no FC needed,' disclosing that it has no side effects on hardware. It also clarifies that it returns a plan rather than applying changes, which is important behavioral context. It could mention any limitations or error conditions, but for a knowledge-only tool, this is solid.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It leads with a one-sentence summary, expands with relevant details, and breaks out arguments in a clear list. No wasted words, and each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 is a simple knowledge/recommendation utility with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers its purpose, parameter semantics, and return value (a layout plan to be used with assign_switch()). This is entirely adequate for the tool's complexity and context.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description's 'Args:' section effectively explains all three parameters: skill_level (with allowed values), num_switches (what it counts), and has_gps (how it affects RTH suggestion). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Recommend a fixed-wing flight-mode/switch layout.' It uses a specific verb (recommend), resource (flight-mode/switch layout), and scope (fixed-wing). It distinguishes itself from the sibling assign_switch by noting the output can be handed to assign_switch() to apply, showing a clear complementary relationship.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool via 'Pure knowledge — no FC needed,' indicating it's for planning without hardware interaction. It also ties to assign_switch() as the next step. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with other alternatives, so slightly short of a 5.

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