illustrator_get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with a CONTRACT line. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: pagination via truncated/nextOffset, scope='both' return shape, read-only symbol traversal, and token mismatch warnings. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 long but earns its length: CONTRACT, WHEN TO USE, OPTIONS, EXAMPLES, and NOTES are clearly separated and front-loaded. The examples are representative rather than repetitive, and every section contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 no output schema and a fairly complex parameter space, the description is unusually complete. It covers scope variants, pagination, layer filtering, symbol handling, truncation signaling, and return shape for scope='both'. The sibling guidance and token note fill the remaining contextual gaps an agent needs to call the tool effectively.

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?

Although context signals report 0% schema description coverage at the wrapper level, the nested schema actually documents each parameter, and the description independently summarizes scope, max_items, max_layers, offset, and filters. Examples show realistic parameter combinations and paging usage, adding value beyond schema descriptions, especially for symbol scope and truncation behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get complete document information and structure as a JSON tree.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it reports structure, not appearance, and routes visual inspection to illustrator_observe and export readiness to illustrator_preflight_check. This gives an agent a precise mental model of what the tool does and does not do.

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?

A dedicated WHEN TO USE section lists concrete scenarios: understanding canvas state before writing scripts, inspecting layers/items/properties, and getting app info. It also explicitly says when not to use it—for appearance use illustrator_observe, for export fitness use illustrator_preflight_check—which is strong alternative routing.

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