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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond this — no pagination behavior, no volume expectations, no note on whether listing requires playbook access. It also implies run-scoping while run_id is optional per schema, a mild tension the description never resolves.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing differentiation and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, for a list tool sitting alongside read_canvas and write_canvas, the absence of any routing guidance leaves an agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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%, including the key semantic that omitting run_id lists across all runs, so the schema does the work and the baseline applies. The description itself adds no meaning about either parameter.

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 verb and resource ('List canvas documents') and scopes it to a workflow run, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_canvas or write_canvas, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over read_canvas, write_canvas, or get_playbook. The description gives no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what happens when playbook_id is supplied but run_id is not.

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