Krita Run Action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that unknown names return did_you_mean suggestions, but it omits any warning about potentially destructive side effects, prerequisites like an open document, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap for a tool that can trigger arbitrary actions.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, examples support comprehension, and the error-handling note is placed as a useful secondary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is largely complete: it explains the function, provides examples, and points users to the action list for validation. It could mention that some actions are destructive, but the generic dispatcher nature makes that acceptable.

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%, leaving the 'name' parameter completely undocumented. The description compensates with example values (flatten_image, mirror_canvas, view_zoom_in, selectiontool) and explains error recovery via krita_list_actions, adding meaning well beyond the raw string type.

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 ('Trigger') and resource ('any named Krita action') with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguished from krita_list_actions (which lists actions) and krita_run_python (which runs scripts) by narrowing to named actions.

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 did_you_mean hint implies that krita_list_actions is the source for valid names, giving indirect guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions for specific actions (e.g., undo/redo tools).

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