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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: unsupported sections are refused, omitted data is not an empty collection, storyboard returns native clips, overview may include saved instructions, tiles have a bounded saved-take page, and document versus folder cursors are independent. This adds meaningful operational context not captured by the annotations.

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 dense and jargon-heavy, but it is front-loaded with the core read operation and every sentence carries domain-specific rules rather than filler. Minor issues such as the repeated 'Storyboard storyboard' phrasing and semicolon-heavy structure keep it from being 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?

Given the tool's complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the critical edge cases: section refusal, cursor independence, continuation via list_canvas_takes, and workshop handoff to get_workshop. It does not explain every one of the 16 section values, but the output schema and enum carry that load.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description reinforces that folders_cursor is only valid for documents and independent from cursor, but that relationship is also stated in the schema; the remaining section-specific notes mostly describe output behavior rather than additional input semantics.

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 clearly states that this tool reads an authorized project section with projections and revisions, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes some sibling behavior by pointing to list_canvas_takes and get_workshop, though it does not broadly distinguish get_project from list_projects or other project readers.

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?

It gives useful context-specific usage: unsupported sections are refused, tiles continuation goes through list_canvas_takes, folders_cursor is only for documents, and workshop cursors go to get_workshop. It does not provide a general when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives rule for the many other project-related tools, but the conditional guidance is strong.

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