Get Edgeless Canvas

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive operation, and it lists what is read. Lacks explicit statement that no changes are made, but sufficient for a safe read tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first defines purpose and return data, second provides usage guidance. No redundant words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, description details return structure (xywh, bounding box, per-type counts). Usage advice completes the context, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics; it only explains the output. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters well.

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 'Read the full edgeless canvas' and enumerates specific element types (notes, frames, edgeless-text, shapes, connectors, text, groups) and return data (xywh, bounding box, counts). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_doc or list_surface_elements.

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 explicitly recommends use 'when you need to understand canvas layout end-to-end before placing new elements.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear; an agent can infer this is for full layout analysis, not for single element retrieval.

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