krita_get_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the pending-response and polling behavior, and by clarifying that the returned canvas is 'settled.' No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 only two sentences, each contributing distinct information: the primary return value and the pending/polling behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 description conveys the output format and async polling behavior, which helps given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics, especially max_edge, and does not place this tool relative to the other preview tools. The tool is relatively simple and annotations cover read-only behavior, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 provides no explanation of instance_id, document_id, or max_edge. An agent cannot infer what max_edge controls or how the required IDs are used from the description alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Return a settled canvas as an inline PNG with coordinate and color metadata.' It identifies the resource as the canvas, distinguishing it from layer- and region-specific preview tools like krita_get_layer_preview and krita_get_region_preview. The mention of PNG format and metadata further sharpens what the tool returns.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the settled canvas preview, and it hints at polling behavior for pending responses. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling preview tools or state when a region or layer preview should be used instead. The usage guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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