Get Edgeless Canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details: it returns aggregate bounding box and per-type element counts, which go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, approximately 50 words, front-loaded purpose and usage guidance. No filler, every sentence provides value.

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?

No output schema, but the description completely describes the return value: all blocks with xywh, all surface elements, aggregate bounding box, per-type counts. For a read-only tool with safe annotations, this is fully adequate.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (docId, workspaceId). The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'full edgeless canvas', and specifies exactly what it returns (edgeless-positioned blocks with xywh, surface elements, aggregate bounding box, per-type counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_surface_elements' or 'get_doc'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need to understand canvas layout end-to-end before placing new elements', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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