krita_get_operation

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context that a failure response does not prove no changes occurred, which is a non-obvious behavioral warning beyond the 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?

Two terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the purpose and the second conveys a critical caveat, so 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-oriented tool, the description covers the main safety and usage caveats, but without an output schema it leaves the return value under-specified. The mention of reading state/effect separately hints at the response shape but does not fully describe what the agent should expect.

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 for the two required parameters, but it does not explain instance_id or operation_id at all. The property names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no semantics about how these IDs relate to the pending operation being reconciled.

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 says the tool reconciles a pending or uncertain operation, which points to retrieving or verifying an operation's status, but the verb 'reconcile' is ambiguous and never states plainly that this tool fetches operation state or results. It does implicitly distinguish the tool from cancellation by focusing on reconciliation rather than mutation.

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 usage context: use this when an operation is pending or uncertain, and suggests reading state and effect separately. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended trigger condition is reasonably explicit.

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