vizcom_check_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful clarification 'Does not move anything', confirming it diagnoses rather than fixes, but it says nothing about what the check returns or how issues are reported.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core check conditions and followed by the non-mutation guarantee and usage timing. Dense with terms like 'center-based/Y-up' but no wasted wording.

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 simple and read-only, and the annotations plus the explicit check list cover most of an agent's needs. With no output schema and undocumented parameters, the definition should say what a check result looks like and what 'padding' does, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 0% for both parameters and the description does not mention either. 'padding' is especially opaque — its role in bounds checking (tolerance? exclusion margin?) is left entirely to inference.

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 ('check') and resource (layout bounds) and enumerates the exact conditions tested: nodes outside sections, overlapping content, overlapping sections. An agent can distinguish it from layout-mutating siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use after board organization' gives a sequencing hint, which is real guidance. However, it never states when not to use it, nor does it point to vizcom_arrange_nodes or vizcom_restore_layout as the follow-up for actually fixing what it reports.

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