papercanvas_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the returned payload and the meaning of hard_errors (structural problems that block render/patch), which also implies a pure read. It omits failure behavior for a bad path and says nothing about cost or whether the read is idempotent.

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 tight sentences with the payload description first and the workflow instruction second. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the return shape and the key semantic of hard_errors, which is the important missing piece. The unexplained path parameter is the only substantial omission.

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% for the single required parameter 'path', and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell from either source whether path is a file path, a figure identifier, or a directory, which is a real gap for the only required input.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (full figure IR) and enumerates what the IR contains: nodes, edges, groups, theme, canvas. That is far more informative than a name restatement, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like papercanvas_inspect or papercanvas_lint.

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?

"Call this before patching" gives a clear sequencing constraint that tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It stops short of naming when not to use it or how it differs from papercanvas_inspect/lint, so no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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