Krita Export Layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it explains the export behavior, trimming, the default output location, and the return value (per-layer paths). It does not mention overwrite behavior, filename conventions, or handling of hidden layers, but the core side-effects are disclosed.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, followed by default behavior and return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter export tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential decision points: what is exported, in what format, where output goes by default, and what the tool returns. Slightly more detail about the output_dir parameter semantics and file naming would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that output_dir defaults to the plugin's canvas output directory, which adds meaningful meaning to the otherwise bare nullable string parameter. However, it does not specify path format, whether directories are created, or what happens when null is explicitly passed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('every top-level layer'), and the output format ('its own PNG'). The added scoping detail 'top-level' and 'trimmed to its bounds' distinguishes this from generic export or image-capture tools like krita_get_canvas or ase_export_layers.

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 makes the intended use case clear: exporting all top-level layers to PNG files, with an optional override of the default output directory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent can infer when this tool applies.

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