design_trace_stipple

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose how each rendering mode behaves (dot size/density vs. line weight), which is real behavioral context. It omits side effects entirely: createLayer defaults to true and will add a layer, sourceId defaults to the current canvas, and nothing says whether existing content is replaced or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and followed by the mode distinction. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

All ten parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, and there is no output schema, so parameter burden is low. What is missing is the operational context an agent needs before invoking: that a trace layer is created by default, that the source defaults to the current canvas, and what crosshatch does. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a little semantic framing by explaining what the stipple and hatch modes actually produce, but it never mentions the third enum value 'crosshatch' or any of the mode-specific parameters (angle, spacing, jitter, radii, targetDots).

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 and resource: convert an image into stipple dots or hatching lines driven by value/darkness. That is clearly distinguishable in kind from most siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the trace family (design_trace_values, design_trace_lines, design_trace_edges), which an agent choosing among them would want.

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?

Usage is implied by the mode semantics ('stipple mode places dots...', 'hatching draws parallel lines...'), which helps an agent pick a mode. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over design_trace_values or design_trace_lines, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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