Krita New Canvas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but gives no information about side effects—whether it replaces the current canvas, requires saving, or is destructive. For a creation tool, users need to know if existing work is affected, but this is not addressed.

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, brief sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is too terse to provide substantive value beyond the tool name. It is not structured to front-load important details (e.g., parameter meaning or effects) and could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks any information about parameter semantics, expected outcomes, or return values (even though an output schema exists, its content is unknown). The tool is simple but still requires more context to be used correctly, so this is a major gap.

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 has four parameters with no descriptions (schema description coverage is 0%). The description does not mention any of these parameters, their purpose, units (e.g., width/height in pixels), or constraints (e.g., background color format). It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without essential information to correctly set 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new canvas') and explicitly names the application ('in Krita'), which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool ase_create_canvas. However, it doesn't further differentiate from other Krita creation tools (e.g., krita_open_file) or elaborate on what 'new canvas' implies (new document vs. replacing current), so it's clear but not fully specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether Krita needs to be running, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over opening an existing file or using other canvas-related tools. The description simply states the action without any context for selection.

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