Krita Get Canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the export target (PNG to plugin output dir), the two return modes (png_base64 field vs. plugin result with path), and that as_base64 switches between them. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'plugin output dir' is and never clarifies whether the operation is destructive or requires a canvas state. Reasonable 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?

Two focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The as_base64 explanation is dense but earns its place since it clarifies the primary mode switch. No wasted words, though the plugin-output-dir parenthetical could have been a touch clearer.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. max_side is undocumented, the output directory location is vague, and the non-base64 return is only described as 'the plugin result including the exported path' with no indication of what else it carries. For a tool with zero structured metadata, this leaves material gaps.

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 document all three parameters. It explains as_base64 well (returns PNG bytes as plain text png_base64), and filename is inferable from its name and default. But max_side (integer, default 0) is completely unexplained — the agent has no idea what limit it applies or what 0 means. The description only partially compensates for the total schema gap.

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+resource: 'Export the current Krita canvas to PNG'. This is clear and distinct from most siblings (e.g., krita_get_pixels reads pixel data, krita_save saves the document). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from krita_export_layers, which could plausibly overlap in an agent's mind, and it does not name any sibling for contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing. The only usage hint is the as_base64 explanation ('for callers that decode/write themselves'), which is a parameter selection hint rather than tool-selection guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over krita_export_layers or how max_side should be chosen.

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