gh_new_canvas

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

The description matches the annotation (readOnlyHint=false) indicating a write operation. However, it provides no additional behavioral details such as whether the current canvas is closed, if unsaved data is preserved, or any side effects. With annotations already signaling non-read-only, the description adds minimal value.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks critical details about parameters, return values, and usage context. It is not front-loaded with the most important information beyond the basic 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?

Given that there is an output schema (not shown) and one parameter, the description should explain what happens upon successful creation (e.g., returns something, becomes active canvas). It does not address return values, error conditions, or state changes, leaving the agent with incomplete context for invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the 'name' parameter. It does not mention parameters at all. The schema's own description ('Document name.') is minimal, and the tool description fails to add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action: 'Create a fresh empty Grasshopper canvas.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Grasshopper canvas'), differentiating it from sibling tools like gh_open_file or gh_save_file.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that this should be used to start a new project, nor does it clarify when to use gh_open_file instead. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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