krita_get_diffusion_generation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: polling semantics, stable result handles, and the warning that queued job progress is not proof of backend admission. No contradiction with annotations.

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: the action and resource appear immediately, and the additional caveat about queued jobs earns its place. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 read-only polling tool, the annotations and caveat cover safety and basic behavior. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the agent is left guessing about the return shape and how the three IDs relate to a generation. The cryptic 'add-on' reference also weakens completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain instance_id, document_id, or generation_id beyond referencing 'generation'. The parameter names are suggestive, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level descriptions for three required inputs.

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 action ('Poll') and resource ('bridge-owned generation') with a clear outcome ('obtain stable result handles'). It is distinct from listing jobs or fetching a rendered result, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like krita_get_diffusion_result or krita_diffusion_status, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for polling a bridge-owned generation until stable result handles are available. It also adds a useful caution that a queued job does not prove backend admission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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