krita_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'No document changes.' It adds value by disclosing that the tool discovers reachable bridges and reports versions, capabilities, and queue health, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the result without overpromising. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single 13-word sentence packed with all essential information: the action, the target, the returned data categories, and the non-mutating guarantee. Every word earns its place, and the key distinguishing elements are front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter status tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (versions, capabilities, queue health) and that it is safe/read-only. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on instance_id semantics, but given the optional parameter and simple scope, the description is still reasonably 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%, yet the description never mentions the single instance_id parameter or whether omitting it covers all bridges versus a specific one. The parameter title alone ('Instance Id') gives minimal meaning. With no schema descriptions and no elaboration in the tool description, the agent must guess the parameter's role.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Discover') and names the resource ('Krita bridges') plus the exact information returned: 'exact versions, capabilities and queue health'. It also explicitly scopes the tool as non-mutating with 'No document changes'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like krita_list_documents or krita_diffusion_status.

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 implies this tool is for checking bridge availability and health, especially before document operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when to omit instance_id. There is no 'use this when' guidance or a named alternative. The context is clear enough for basic use, but explicit routing is absent.

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