bdesign_canvas_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds output context ('current Canvas revision and focused card summary') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the main action and then adds the optional modifier and output components efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description does list the main return elements (browser handoff, current revision, focused card summary), but it leaves projectId semantics unexplained and provides no context for how this view relates to other canvas/editor tools. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only partially clarifies cardId via 'optionally focused on one card'. projectId is not explained at all, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 the tool returns a Canvas browser handoff and identifies optional card focus plus revision and card summary outputs. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bdesign_canvas_get or bdesign_editor_view, but the specific 'browser handoff' resource makes the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as bdesign_canvas_get, bdesign_canvas_search, or bdesign_editor_view. The description only states what is returned, not the intended selection context.

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