List Modellix Canvas Tasks

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context about redaction (omitting prompts, secrets, absolute paths, temporary URLs) and the workspace-local scope, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List redacted workspace-local operation summaries for recovery') and then adds necessary detail about omissions. No wasted words.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and does not explain how limit/cursor/status affect the listing. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fill these 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%, and the description mentions none of the parameters (limit, cursor, status). The description does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter information in the schema.

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 lists 'redacted workspace-local operation summaries for recovery,' which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the 'redacted' and 'workspace-local' qualifiers give it a unique scope.

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 mention of 'for recovery' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_canvas_context or get_modellix_canvas_status. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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