krita_inspect_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about what is being inspected, but does not disclose behavior such as error conditions, what happens if the document is missing, or the structure of the return value.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and the information it exposes. There is no wasted wording, though it could have included usage guidance without becoming overly long.

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 what is returned at a high level (dimensions, color space, editability, layer UUIDs), but omits how to obtain valid instance_id/document_id values and provides no output format details. Given the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the definition is minimally but not fully complete.

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 instance_id or document_id beyond their names and patterns. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without semantic guidance on what values to supply.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource (document) and the exact properties inspected (dimensions, color space, editability, layer UUIDs). This is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling inspect tools like krita_inspect_diffusion_document.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a document_id), and no exclusion conditions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual routing.

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