analyze_layout_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only analysis but does not state what it returns, whether it has side effects, or what 'health issues' specifically covers. The tool's behavior remains largely opaque.

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 and provides a concrete example. There is no wasted wording or redundant 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any relevant constraints. It does not, leaving the agent without essential context for interpreting results or understanding the tool's role in a workflow.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for deviceId or platform. While the parameter names and the platform enum are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema field descriptions, leaving the agent to guess about deviceId format and valid values.

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 a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('UI layout') with an illustrative example ('deep nesting'). It distinguishes itself from interaction tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling diagnostic tools like get_semantic_hierarchy or capture_diff.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or what differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_semantic_hierarchy or get_viewport.

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