get_fill_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation and it scopes the inspection to material or per-channel color/resource sources, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, prerequisites, or whether the target must be a Fill layer. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, starting with the verb and immediately stating what is inspected. It is efficient, though quite terse given the missing usage and parameter context.

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 the description need not explain return values. However, for a one-parameter tool with no annotations, it leaves the sole uid parameter undefined and provides no usage context, making the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 schema has one required integer parameter, uid, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions uid or explains what it identifies. The phrase 'a Fill layer's' is only an indirect clue and does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a Fill layer's material or per-channel color/resource sources'), so the agent can tell it retrieves fill-source information rather than mutating it. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling getters like get_fill_parameters or get_fill_projection, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives despite many closely related fill-related sibling tools. The only implied usage is 'inspect,' leaving the agent to infer when this should be preferred over get_fill_parameters or get_fill_projection.

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