canvas_action_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior – receipts are process-local and an unknown ID after restart is not evidence of write failure – which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However it says nothing about receipt lifetime, retention, or what the 'uncertain' state means operationally, keeping it at a solid 3.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the critical caveat about process-local receipts. No filler sentences, though the line-wrapping adds no structure and the middle and last sentences overlap slightly on the 'unknown ID' idea.

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-value description is unnecessary, and the description focuses on the non-obvious operational hazard. The main omission is not telling the agent which tool produces the action_id, which matters for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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% for the single action_id parameter, so the description must carry meaning and only partially does: 'unknown ID' implies the ID comes from a prior prepare/receipt, but it never says where to obtain it or its format. Baseline credit for a one-parameter tool, with a clear gap.

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 ('read a prepared/completed/uncertain action receipt') and names the states the receipt can be in, which is concrete. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it complements (canvas_execute_action, canvas_cancel_action, canvas_prepare_*), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives real usage direction: read the receipt 'without retrying a write', and 'inspect Canvas before preparing another action' when an ID is unknown. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (execute/cancel) or stating exclusions explicitly, so it's clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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