illustrator_get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent/openWorld, so the CONTRACT line is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond them: truncation semantics ('truncated=true and nextOffset'), offset-based paging per layer, and the shape of scope='both' responses. Those are real behavioral traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Well front-loaded: the one-line purpose is followed by clearly labeled CONTRACT, WHEN TO USE, OPTIONS, EXAMPLES and NOTES blocks, and the examples are genuinely useful. The CONTRACT line merely restates the annotations, which is the one piece of low-value content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the NOTES still flag the truncation/nextOffset signals an agent must handle when paging. With scope, pagination, filtering and the app-vs-document distinction all covered, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 registers as 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: every parameter is covered with defaults and valid ranges (max_items 1-5000, max_layers 1-200), plus the paging interaction between offset/max_items and layer_name/layer_index. The EXAMPLES block further disambiguates how the parameters combine.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Get complete document information and structure as a JSON tree') and the WHEN TO USE bullets clarify the three inspectable scopes (canvas/layers/items, app info). It stops short of naming siblings such as illustrator_query_items, which is the obvious alternative for filtered searching, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 WHEN TO USE section gives three concrete contexts ('before writing modification scripts', 'inspecting layers, items, positions', 'scope=app'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It never states when NOT to use it or points to the sibling that should be used instead (e.g., illustrator_query_items for targeted queries), so routing is still partly inferred.

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