suggest_skeleton_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'without modifying the current draft,' indicating it's a read-only or non-destructive operation, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as output format, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Suggest starter rock skeleton plans') and adds a key constraint ('without modifying the current draft'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (suggestion generation), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and non-destructive nature but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with other tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'difficulty' fully documented in the schema (enum values and default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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: 'Suggest starter rock skeleton plans' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'without modifying the current draft,' which contrasts with modification tools like add_pushable_rock or place_tile. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other suggestion tools like suggest_stop_points.

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 implies usage context: 'without modifying the current draft' suggests this is for planning or ideation phases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like seed_layout_pattern or other suggestion tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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