figcraft_inspect_document

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspeksi' implies a non-mutating read and the enumeration gives some sense of the returned structure, but it never confirms read-only behavior, mentions that output could be large for deep canvases, or states prerequisites such as an open document.

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 covered resources are listed compactly after the core statement. Slightly more structure (e.g. separating purpose from returned content) would earn a 5.

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 usefully enumerates what the inspection returns (hierarchy, styling, bounding boxes), covering the main gap. It does not explain read-only semantics or output size, which matters for a tree-walk tool with a depth parameter.

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 100% – both 'depth' and 'allPages' are documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g. what depth=4 actually yields or when to set allPages), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspeksi') and a specific resource ('hierarki kanvas dokumen aktif'), then enumerates what is covered: pages, layers, frames, styling, and bounding boxes. It is clearly the read/inspection counterpart to the many create/set siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 only implied: inspecting the 'active document' suggests a file must already be open, which hints at a prerequisite. There is no statement of when to prefer this over figcraft_screenshot or figcraft_audit_layout, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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