Krita Document Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does convey that the tool returns a document overview and enumerates the data it reads, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe behavior when no document is active. 'Overview' implies non-mutating, but the claim is implicit.

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 a single compact sentence with a colon-separated field list. Every listed item is directly informative, and the core subject 'Active Krita document overview' is front-loaded with no 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool, the description plus the existing output schema is largely sufficient: it identifies the target resource and all returned categories. It omits edge-case behavior like an absent active document, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The empty input schema with 100% coverage already makes it clear that no arguments are needed.

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 names a concrete resource ('active Krita document') and enumerates the exact data categories returned: name, filename, size, resolution, layer count, active layer, selection state, zoom, and Krita version. It is clearly distinct from layer-specific or status tools, though it lacks a strong verb like 'get' or 'read'.

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 intended use is implied by the resource and field list, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related siblings such as krita_status, krita_get_canvas, or krita_list_layers. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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