document_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It contributes one genuinely useful, non-obvious fact – the layer tree is ordered bottom-to-top – and implies a side-effect-free read. It does not state that the call is read-only, what happens with no active document, or how large the returned tree may be.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The ordering parenthetical is the one addition and it 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it only names two components while 'Active document details' leaves the rest unspecified (dimensions, color space, filename, behavior when nothing is selected). Adequate for a zero-parameter info call, but not fully self-contained.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete.

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?

States a specific resource (the active document) and enumerates the key payload: the full layer tree and selection bounds. It is clearly a read-only info tool, distinguishable from mutating siblings like update_layer. It stops short of naming a sibling like list_layers, so an agent must infer the distinction itself.

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?

Usage is implied by 'info' and 'Active document details' – you call it to inspect the current document. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about when to prefer list_layers or krita_status instead, and no note that no document must be open for it to fail.

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