fill_gradient

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains gradient types, color stops, dithering, and region parameters, but lacks details on whether the fill overwrites existing content, undo behavior, or return values. Some behavioral traits are missing.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It is reasonably concise, though the Args list takes up space. Each sentence adds value, but could be slightly more compact.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide more context. It explains gradient-specific parameters well but does not cover the filename, frame, and layer parameters nor the return value, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains most parameters (colors, gradient_type, angle, dither, region) in the Args section, but omits description for filename, frame, and layer, leaving a gap in parameter semantics.

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 'Fill a region with a gradient' which effectively communicates the tool's action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fill_area or fill_layer that also fill regions.

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 context for dithering (e.g., 'provide exactly 2 colours' for dither=True) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like fill_area or fill_layer. Usage is implied but not declared.

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