art.canvas.analyze_ref

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It suggests a read-only analysis operation and states the extracted outputs, which is useful. However, it does not mention error conditions, color-count limits, coordinate space of the color map, or whether any state is modified.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the main action and lists outputs in a scannable way. Every word adds information and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what to pass and roughly what to expect back. It could be more explicit about the return shape of the color map and any constraints, but it is still reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is only one parameter and its schema description already covers it (100% coverage). The description adds only the context that the image is a 'reference image', but does not provide additional semantic detail about accepted formats, path resolution, or behavior for missing files.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('reference image') and names concrete outputs: dimensions, color palette with counts, and 2D color map. This clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like art.get_palette.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need to analyze a reference image for dimensions, palette counts, or a color map. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as art.get_palette or art.canvas.get_state, nor any exclusions.

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