get_gp_info

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what data is returned (layers, frames, stroke count), which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, errors, or performance considerations, though the read-only nature is already covered.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the specific data items. It contains zero fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple getter, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 getter with one parameter and an available output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers the core purpose and return items. It could be more explicit about the 'object' parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema's presence, the description is largely complete.

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 input schema defines a single required parameter 'object' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what 'object' refers to (e.g., object name, ID, or path), leaving the parameter ambiguous. Since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('grease pencil info') and enumerates the exact data returned (layers, frames, stroke count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation/manipulation tools like create_grease_pencil and add_gp_layer, which are obvious alternatives.

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 implies its use for retrieving grease pencil data but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative getters or state when not to use it. While the sibling list makes the purpose evident, there is no explicit guidance on selection criteria, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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