krita_inspect_brush

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'without changing them' and scopes the operation to the active document view, reinforcing the safety profile. It does not describe return structure or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.

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 first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and complete property list; the second sentence adds a useful sibling-tool pointer without unnecessary elaboration.

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 property list gives a solid sense of what the tool observes, and the annotations cover side-effect safety. However, the lack of an output schema, completely undocumented identifier parameters, and no guidance on how to obtain document_id or instance_id leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain document_id or instance_id at all. With no schema-level parameter documentation, the description needed to compensate, but it only references the active document view without mapping it to either parameter. The agent is left to infer the meaning of both required identifiers from context.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource: the active document view's brush settings. It enumerates the exact properties returned—preset name, size, opacity, flow, rotation, blending, eraser, alpha lock, pressure, and foreground color—making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling inspection and painting tools.

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 explicitly points to krita_list_brush_presets as the alternative when painting handles are needed, giving the agent a clear routing hint. It does not fully state all conditions for when to avoid this tool, but the read-only inspection intent is well conveyed.

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