tldraw_list_bindings

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

No annotations provided. Description implies a safe read operation (listing), but does not confirm read-only nature, mention any side effects, or discuss performance implications for large documents. Basic transparency, no contradictions.

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?

One sentence, 12 words, no fluff. Every word contributes meaning. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what bindings are ('arrow connections') and the filter. Could mention return format but not required.

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% (1 parameter fully described). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, resulting in baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('List'), resource ('bindings (arrow connections)'), and scope ('in the document, optionally filtered by page'). It is distinct from siblings like tldraw_get_bindings_for_shape, which targets a specific shape.

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?

Implicitly suggests using name and filter, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for a global list vs. shape-specific bindings). No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use given.

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