document_getInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and enumerates the returned fields, making the main behavior transparent. However, it does not disclose what happens if no document is open or the exact return format (e.g., units for dimensions).

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently lists the relevant document attributes, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what object it operates on and what information it returns. Minor gaps such as error behavior when no document is open and precise data types are noted, but they do not detract significantly from overall completeness.

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 no parameter detail to add. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4, and the description adequately focuses on the return value instead.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'currently open MOHO document', with a concrete list of data fields (name, path, dimensions, frame range, FPS). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting layers, bones, or animation.

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 when document-level metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The phrase 'currently open' suggests a prerequisite, but no explicit when-to-use guidance is provided.

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