krita_get_region_preview

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: previews may be pending, output dimensions are capped, and region validity is restricted. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Purpose, constraints, and follow-up polling behavior are all front-loaded and compactly expressed.

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 covers the core invocation constraints, output format, and asynchronous resolution path. It does not describe error behavior or coordinate origin explicitly, but the essential information for an agent to call this tool successfully is present.

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. It does by explaining x/y as image-space offsets, constraining the region size, and capping the output edge. Parameter names like document_id and instance_id are self-explanatory, though not individually mapped in prose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('settled rectangular canvas crop'), and states the output format ('inline PNG with image-space offsets'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling preview tools like krita_get_preview and krita_get_layer_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?

It gives clear usage constraints: region must be within canvas, at most 16 megapixels, and output edge at most 1024. It also tells the agent to poll pending previews via krita_get_operation, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases.

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