auto_layout_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a mutating operation ('rearranges', 'aligns') but does not disclose whether artboard positions are permanently overwritten, whether the operation is undoable, or whether it requires an open file or selected context.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward layout operation: the schema documents all seven parameters and the description conveys the effect. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves unstated whether the tool returns the new positions, reorders artboards in place, or only works on a specific file/selection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's terms 'multi-column', 'grid', and 'gutters' loosely map to columns, gutterX, and gutterY, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('rearranges and neatly aligns') and a specific resource ('a list of artboards') with a clear outcome (multi-column grid matrix with consistent gutters). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_nodes or connect_artboards_flow.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as configure_layout_constraints, move_nodes, or batch_write_artboards. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are mentioned.

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