Get Document Info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which convey the safe, read-only nature. The description adds that it returns an overview with specific fields, but does not elaborate on behavior beyond the annotations, such as whether the data is a snapshot or dynamic.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the key fields returned (name, color mode, size, artboards, layers, item and selection counts). This provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though some details (e.g., format of size) are omitted.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add any parameter information. According to guidelines, zero parameters means a baseline of 4.

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 clearly specifies that the tool provides an overview of the active document, listing specific attributes (name, color mode, size, artboards, layers, item and selection counts). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific elements like selection or artboards.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to understand the current state before making changes.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tools imply more specialized options.

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