penpot_get_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the nesting behavior (descendants under 'shapes' field) and the componentInfo field with its four states. It does not mention error conditions, authentication, or rate limits, but as a read-only lookup, the covered aspects are sufficient for typical use.

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, well-structured paragraph. It starts with the main purpose, then explains the key behavioral detail (nesting), and concludes with the componentInfo logic. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality well: it explains what the tool returns (shapes and componentInfo) and how parameters affect the output. It does not describe error responses or full shape structure, but for a lookup tool, the coverage is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of includeDescendants and maxDepth in detail, and implies the required parameters (fileId, pageId, shapeId) through context. However, it does not explicitly describe the required parameters, which are self-explanatory but could be named. Overall, the description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up a single shape by id on a page'. It distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (penpot_get_file_snapshot) by specifying 'without pulling the whole page'. The verb and resource are clear and 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for a single shape lookup) and mentions an alternative (penpot_get_file_snapshot). It also explains the behavior of parameters like includeDescendants and maxDepth, helping users decide how to configure the call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list exclusions.

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