krita_inspect_vector_layer

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: results are ephemeral snapshot-based indices, not persistent shape IDs, there is a 256-shape limit, and reinspection is required after edits. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations and schema alone convey.

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, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the key caveats about snapshot behavior placed immediately after. Every sentence adds useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 essential return semantics (snapshot_id, shape_index, non-persistence) and the 256-shape limit, which is the core of what an agent needs. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain how the shape_index addresses relate to sibling editing operations or what happens when the limit is exceeded, but overall it is adequate for a read-only inspection tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that the target is a vector layer, which maps to node_id implicitly, but it does not explain instance_id, document_id, or how node_id must identify a vector layer specifically. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect'), resource ('vector layer'), and concrete result ('up to 256 top-level vector shapes and pixel bounds'). It also clarifies the output concept (snapshot_id plus shape_index addresses), which distinguishes it from general inspection tools like krita_inspect_document and from mutation tools like edit_vector_shape.

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 temporal guidance: 'Reinspect after edits' and 'identical restored states share a snapshot.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous for a read-only inspection operation.

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