krita_open

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

Annotations are minimal (all false) and the description does not disclose key behaviors like that it opens a GUI window, may block execution, or requires user interaction. The term 'GUI' hints at a graphical interface, but concrete 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the main purpose and workflow. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more structured could improve clarity.

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 covers the basic purpose and links to a sibling tool, but lacks details on return value, blocking behavior, and prerequisites. For a GUI-opening tool, more context about the interactive nature would be beneficial.

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%, yet the description does not explain the sole parameter 'file_path'. It only mentions 'Öffnet Krita (GUI)' without linking to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.

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 opens Krita GUI for manual polishing of 2D art, specifying the verb 'opens' and resource 'Krita GUI'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the subsequent export step (krita_export).

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 a clear workflow: use this tool to open Krita, save as .kra, then use krita_export. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the sequential guidance is helpful.

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