list_canvases

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and 'currently open' provides state context. However, it does not disclose any prerequisites, session requirements, or why openness matters for invocation, and there is no explicit statement about side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: subject, action, resource, and state condition.

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 zero-parameter, simple listing operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is listed. It could slightly benefit from noting that the tool returns the open canvases (already covered by output schema) or from referencing when one would want this, but nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the rubric establishes a baseline of 4 for such cases. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('currently open Astro Flow workflow canvases'). The qualifier 'currently open' clearly distinguishes this from tools like get_workflow, which presumably retrieves a specific workflow rather than enumerating open canvases.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to see currently open canvases in Astro Flow. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like get_workflow or describe_capability, leaving some inference to the agent.

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