Krita List Brushes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the filter behavior and that it lists presets, but doesn't mention whether it requires an active Krita session, what the return format is (though output schema exists), or any side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key filter feature. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 listing tool with optional parameters, the description is sufficient. The output schema likely provides details on the return structure, so not explaining it is acceptable. The main gap is whether an active Krita connection is needed, but the sibling tools and tool family context suggest this is implicit.

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 input schema describes both parameters with defaults, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic types. It mentions the filter is for partial-name matching but doesn't elaborate on the limit's behavior or edge cases. With 0% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could provide more context on how the filter is applied.

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 clearly states the tool lists Krita brush presets with an optional partial-name filter. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like krita_set_brush, but the action of listing is distinct.

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 implies usage for browsing or searching brush presets, and the filter parameter suggests a way to narrow results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as needing a Krita document open. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing.

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