canvas_overview

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context about source resolution, including multiple supported formats and the app-name fallback for multi-app solution zips. It doesn't disclose output shape or error cases, but the readOnlyHint covers the main safety concern.

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 dense but compact, with the tool's purpose front-loaded before the source-format details. The second sentence is a long clause packing several alternatives, but every part earns its place and there is no 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 read-only overview tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, what inputs it accepts, and when the app parameter matters. The lack of a return-structure definition is mitigated by the enumerated summary content. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carry the parameter semantics, and it largely does. It defines source by its accepted formats and defines app as the logical/display name required when a solution contains several apps. This is enough for an agent to populate both parameters, though a structured parameter-by-parameter breakdown would be even clearer.

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 identifies the tool as producing a summary of a canvas app's source and enumerates the included information: screens, control counts, components, control types, data sources, and app checker counts. It also specifies accepted source formats, which helps distinguish it from siblings like list_controls or canvas_data_sources. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete guidance on valid source inputs (.msapp, SourceCode folder, solution zip/unpacked folder) and explains when the app parameter is needed (when a solution zip holds several apps). This provides clear usage context, though it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like app_checker_results or canvas_data_sources.

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