get_canvas_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the root selection priority, depth limits (default 6, max 12), and the data fields returned (id/name/type, geometry, auto-layout props, etc.). Does not mention auth or side effects, but mutation is not implied.

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 sentences, all essential. Front-loaded with the tool's unique advantage (no fileKey needed). Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: scope, root logic, and returned data. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description fully covers return values and constraints. It lists all key node attributes and depth limits. For a tree retrieval tool with two simple parameters, this is complete.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains the depth parameter's default and maximum, and clarifies the nodeId parameter's role in root selection. This significantly aids correct parameter usage.

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 it retrieves the 'Live node tree from the plugin', explains the scope (works in ANY file), and specifies the root node selection logic. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_nodes' or 'inspect_node'.

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?

The description implies usage contexts by noting it works in drafts, branches, files without REST access, and does not require a fileKey. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context signals and sibling tool names help differentiate.

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