illustrator_query_items

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

The CONTRACT line merely restates the annotations (readOnly, destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so it earns no credit. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns an ItemRef per matched item for stable referencing, and include_trace enables debugging. With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then contract, usage, selectors, and notes in scannable sections. Efficient overall, though the CONTRACT block duplicates annotation data and consumes space without adding information.

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 agent gets purpose, when to use, selector syntax, and return-value semantics; the output schema covers the response shape. Minor gap: the description shows {type: "all", recursive: true} while the schema example shows {type: "all"}, leaving the recursive flag's effect unexplained.

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 reported at 0% (descriptions are buried under the $ref), so the description carries the burden and does so by enumerating four selector shapes with concrete payloads. It adds one detail the schema omits, the recursive flag on {type: "all"}, but otherwise largely mirrors the schema's own selector examples.

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 (query), resource (items), and mechanism (Task Protocol declarative target selection). The WHEN TO USE list makes it distinguishable from siblings like illustrator_execute_task and illustrator_execute_script, which run work rather than inspect it.

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?

Gives three concrete scenarios: finding items before modification, inspecting the current selection, and listing items on a layer or in the document. This is clear context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when this tool is the wrong choice versus illustrator_execute_task.

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