krita_get_diffusion_result

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the result is delivered as an inline PNG, the operation does not alter canvas layers or selection, and result handles expire when the add-on removes the images. This goes well beyond the structured 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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds crucial lifecycle information about result-handle expiration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool requires four identifiers and has no output schema, yet the description leaves the meaning and provenance of those identifiers unexplained. It also doesn't clarify how max_edge affects the inline PNG output, making the description incomplete for an agent that must supply these parameters correctly.

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 five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what instance_id, document_id, generation_id, result_id, or max_edge mean. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate by clarifying parameter roles, but it provides no parameter-level guidance.

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 and resource: inspect a bridge-owned generated image as an inline PNG. It also clarifies what it does not do—selecting the preview or changing canvas layers—which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like krita_apply_diffusion_result or krita_get_preview.

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 makes the use case clear: inspect a generated diffusion result non-destructively as an inline PNG. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the side-effect-free framing gives sufficient context for choosing this tool over mutating or preview-selection tools.

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