Get Modellix Canvas Status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that it checks 'persistent API-key status' and does so 'without exposing secrets' — a key safety guarantee for an agent handling credentials. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists all checked items without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main aspects of the tool's behavior (what it checks and the secrecy guarantee), and the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. However, it omits parameter semantics and usage context, leaving minor gaps for a moderately complex status-checking tool.

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 for undocumented parameters. However, it makes no mention of 'refresh' or 'workspacePath' or their semantics. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'refresh' is ambiguous (e.g., whether it forces a re-check) and no additional meaning is provided.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the exact set of statuses it retrieves (workspace binding, CLI dependency compatibility, persistent API-key status, approved models, Canvas mode). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_canvas_project or get_canvas_context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invoking it. The description simply states what it checks, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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