Get details about the active document

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'reports,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or that it does not require special permissions. It also does not mention any potential side effects or error conditions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Reports') and the target ('the active document'), followed by a clear list of the specific details it provides. It is efficient and free of unnecessary wording.

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?

The description lists the exact information returned (name, path, size, artboard count, layer names), which is sufficient for a simple info tool. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., data structure) or mention what happens if no document is active, leaving minor gaps 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?

The tool has no input parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description does not add any parameter-related semantics, but since the schema is trivially covered (no parameters), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: it reports details of the active document, listing specific attributes (name, path, size, artboard count, layer names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, open, save, or export documents, as it is the only one focused on information retrieval.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that it should be used to inspect the current document, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a document open) or comparison with other info tools like 'illustrator_status'.

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