krita_open_document

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

Adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: path must be relative to the named root, and operation_id should be reused to avoid duplicate opens after timeout. The side effect of attaching an active view is disclosed. It does not elaborate on destructive behavior, but annotations already set destructiveHint=true.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by essential constraints and an idempotency tip.

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?

Covers the core action, supported file types, root restriction, and the operation_id reuse protocol. It omits failure behavior and return values, but no output schema exists and annotations signal the state-change risk.

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 explains path/root relationship and gives operation_id idempotency semantics, but instance_id is not addressed. The partial coverage of the four required parameters makes this a 3 rather than lower.

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?

States a specific verb ('Open'), a constrained resource (local KRA/PNG/JPEG from a configured input root), and a clear side effect (attach an active view). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_create_document and krita_activate_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?

Provides operational constraints (relative path, reuse operation_id) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create or activate alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than stated, and no sibling exclusions are mentioned.

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