Graphite: inspect the active document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the NO_ACTIVE_DOCUMENT failure mode and the fact that the response carries only identity/layer metadata, not content. It stops short of noting any rate limits or latency expectations, but for a read-only query that is minor.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the return payload first, then the decision-relevant usage. No filler, and the error code is placed at the end where it belongs.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter read tool. An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key fields an agent needs for its stated verification workflow (layer_id in layer_ids), and the documented NO_ACTIVE_DOCUMENT branch covers the main failure path.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to mis-specify, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the tool entirely around ambient state ('the active document').

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 and resource ('Return the active document's id and name, all its layers... and the list of open documents') and enumerates the shape of what comes back. Distinguishable from siblings like graphite_select_document or graphite_get_capabilities.

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?

Gives two explicit when-to-use scenarios tied to sibling tools: verifying whether a graphite_insert_svg that returned BRIDGE_TIMEOUT actually landed (by checking layer_id in layer_ids), and confirming a document is not empty before exporting. The condition that selects this verification path is spelled out rather than inferred.

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