Get Canvas Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful output constraint: it will not return image bytes or secrets. This is beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent avoid unexpectedly large or sensitive payloads.

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 of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every phrase adds value: the resource, the scope, and the exclusion. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with output schema and full annotations, the description covers core functionality and includes an important exclusion. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not explain the detailLevel parameter, leaving the agent without enough information to choose an effective level. Adequate but with clear 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?

The single parameter detailLevel is not mentioned in the description. The schema has an enum but does not explain what each level means, and with 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate. The agent cannot reason about the difference between summary, selection, and page levels, which is a significant gap.

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 is clear and specific: it states the tool returns active page and selected Canvas business objects, using a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_canvas_project and page manipulation tools by focusing on context retrieval. The negative clause about image bytes and secrets reinforces its unique role.

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 the agent needs the current canvas context without heavy or sensitive data. It clearly excludes image bytes and secrets, suggesting it is a lightweight alternative, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without direct exclusions.

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