get_fill_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Inspect' implies a non-destructive read, which is the key safety signal, and the UID provenance hint adds workflow context. It does not say whether results reflect live state, whether presets are included in the response, or what the 'channel' scoping does.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the workflow hint, with no filler. The 'tune' phrasing is the only slightly wasteful/ambiguous word.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers what the tool operates on and where UIDs come from. The unexplained 'channel' parameter and the absence of any read-only or side-effect statement leave gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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, and it only partially does: it explains where UIDs come from (snapshot_layer_tree) but not what kind of object the UID identifies at call time. The 'channel' parameter is never mentioned in the description or the schema, leaving one of two arguments fully opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('parameters and presets of a Fill, Fill Effect, Generator or Filter'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling setter set_fill_parameters. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the read-vs-write contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use it to tune generators such as edge wear' gives a context of use, and 'Effect UIDs come from snapshot_layer_tree' gives the prerequisite for obtaining the required argument. However, 'tune' muddies the read-only intent, and there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus set_fill_parameters or get_procedural_inputs.

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