layout.create

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 adds some context beyond the schema: it explains that full-width types auto-snap to screen width and semantic elements auto-position (e.g., header at top). However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The description partially compensates for missing annotations but leaves gaps.

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 starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists layout types with bullet points for readability, and adds behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining auto-snap and auto-position). It could be slightly more concise by integrating the bullet points into prose, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter context (layout types and behaviors), but lacks details on mutation effects, error cases, or return values. With no annotations, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects, but it's adequate for a creation tool with good schema coverage.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it categorizes layout types (semantic sections, grid layouts, etc.) and notes auto-behaviors for some types, which helps interpret the 'type' parameter. However, it doesn't explain other parameters like 'position' or 'dimensions' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Create a layout element on a screen.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('layout element'), and context ('on a screen'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'layout.createSection' or 'layout.update', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists layout types and their behaviors (e.g., auto-snap, auto-position), but doesn't mention when to choose 'layout.create' over other layout tools like 'layout.createSection' or 'layout.update', or prerequisites such as needing an existing screen. Usage is implied through parameter details but not explicitly stated.

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