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 by structured data. The description adds limited but real context — that search is by name and results are paginated, and that node and asset identifiers are distinct namespaces. It does not disclose default page size, ordering of results, or what a page contains, so it clears the lower bar but does not exceed it.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the identifier caveat follows as a compact, high-value warning.

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 four parameters, a nested page object, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description needs to convey scope, filtering, pagination, and result identity — and it does all four at a high level. The remaining gap is return-shape detail (items array, nextCursor behavior), which the cursor parameter description partially covers, so this falls just short of fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, including the enum for 'kind' and the nested page.limit/page.cursor documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the name-search and pagination semantics and adds the useful warning that node IDs and asset IDs are different identifier types (relevant when interpreting 'kind' results), but it does not explain defaults or the interaction between kind=all and pagination.

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: listing canvas nodes and stored assets within a workspace, plus the supported capabilities (name search, pagination). It is distinguishable from siblings like fuzz_get_node and fuzz_get_asset by being the collection-listing operation, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 the description ('Lists ... in a workspace'), and an agent can reason that single-item retrieval belongs to fuzz_get_node/fuzz_get_asset. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between this tool and the previews or get_* siblings.

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