Krita List Layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the output ordering ('top-of-stack first'), the inclusion of nested children, and the list of exposed fields, all of which are observable behaviors beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but 'list' and the descriptive content imply a read-only operation.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the subject and scope, then lists the returned attributes compactly, earning every word.

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, zero-annotation tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it defines the scope ('active document'), ordering, nesting behavior, and the fields returned. There are no missing inputs or usage prerequisites an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already states. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is 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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('Layer tree of the active document'), and further specifies the exact properties returned. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like krita_list_filters or krita_list_brushes because the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: call this tool to inspect the layer hierarchy of the active document, including nested children and their properties. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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