papercanvas_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' plus the shape of what each mode returns (ids, kinds, labels vs geometry, style, edges, groups). It omits behavior for a nonexistent object_id, large-canvas pagination/truncation, and any permission requirements, which keeps it below 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary behavior, using compact parentheticals to enumerate returned fields. Nothing is wasted and the mode split is placed before the read-only note.

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 exists, and the description does describe both return shapes reasonably well, so the return-value burden is mostly met. The unexplained required path parameter and the absent guidance versus papercanvas_get and the mutating siblings are the remaining gaps.

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 must compensate and it only half does. object_id is given real semantics as a mode switch to full detail, but the required 'path' parameter is never explained at all — presumably a canvas file path, but the agent must guess.

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 concrete dual purpose: an inventory of all objects with ids/kinds/labels, or full detail for a single object_id including geometry, style, edges and groups. The verb+resource pairing is specific and an agent can tell what it returns. It falls short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with the sibling papercanvas_get, which by name appears to overlap heavily.

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 two modes are clearly inferred from whether object_id is supplied, which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over papercanvas_get, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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