inspect_canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds 'compact live' and 'native' context, which suggests the output is a condensed current-state view, but it does not disclose return format or behavior when no parameters are provided. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Compact live' and 'native' are dense but meaningful qualifiers, though they could be clearer.

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?

With two optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description does not sufficiently equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Missing details include the meaning of an all-empty call, the relationship between canvas_id and refs, and when to prefer sibling tools.

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 schema already describes canvas_id and the refs kind/id shape. The description adds that refs target 'native node and group' details, which gives some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify whether canvas_id and refs are alternatives, complementary, or what happens when both are absent, leaving a partial gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 names a clear action ('Inspect') and resource ('compact live ComfyUI canvas', 'node and group refs'), which distinguishes it from mutating or presenting siblings. The phrase 'or details for native node and group refs' is slightly ambiguous about the exact object of inspection, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 gives no explicit guidance for when to use this tool versus search_nodes or inspect_node_type. It weakly implies that this tool is for reading canvas/ref state, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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