Krita Get Pixels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses merged projection behavior, layer=None reading the whole composite, width/height 0 meaning canvas edge, and return behavior for as_base64. However, it leaves output_path and x/y coordinate semantics 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?

Three concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it does, key parameter semantics, return behavior, and a usage workflow. 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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics, return values, and a practical workflow. Minor gaps remain around x/y origin, output_path default behavior, and potential side effects, but the output schema helps cover return expectations.

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 explains layer, width/height, and as_base64, but does not explain x, y, or output_path beyond their names and defaults. This is helpful but incomplete across all 7 parameters.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Export a canvas region as PNG'. It also clarifies scope via 'merged projection' and 'layer=None reads the whole composite', making it clearly distinct from write tools like krita_set_pixels or krita_adjust_pixels.

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?

It provides a concrete workflow: export a region, then pair with px_view_image/read_image to look at the canvas. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended context is clear enough.

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