Krita Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the check is a 'forced probe,' implying active interrogation rather than cached state, and specifies the condition being checked (MCP plugin active). However, it does not describe potential side effects, error behavior, or blocking nature, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence that is precise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: 'Check' (action), 'Krita running with MCP plugin active' (scope), and 'forced probe' (behavior). No fluff or redundancy.

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 status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It conveys the essential purpose and the notable forced-probe behavior. The output schema covers return details, so no further explanation is needed. Error handling is implicit for a read-only status check.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage (vacuously). The baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none exist. It correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inputs.

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 action (check) and resource (Krita running with MCP plugin active). It clearly distinguishes from sibling status tools like rd_status and ase_status by naming Krita and the plugin condition. The phrase 'forced probe' adds specificity beyond a generic status check.

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 context (checking Krita availability before operations) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are given, but the intent is clear from the name and description. Lacks explicit routing to alternative status tools, though none directly overlap.

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