imgui_get_canvas_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that events are consumed/destroyed on read ('Events are consumed on read'), which is critical behavioral context for an event-draining tool. This is a meaningful safety disclosure that an agent needs to know before calling. It could add more (e.g., ordering guarantees, whether unreported event types are dropped), but the consumption disclosure is the key behavioral trait.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. The description front-loads the action, enumerates event types, states payloads, and appends the critical consumption caveat. Every sentence 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 tool is moderately simple (1 optional param, no output schema), and the description covers what events are returned and the destructive-read behavior. Without an output schema, it could clarify whether the result is a list or a map keyed by region, and it doesn't explain how events relate to hit regions. However, for a straightforward event-drain tool, the coverage is largely adequate.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter (max_events) is already fully documented in the schema as 'Maximum events to return (default 100)'. The description does not add parameter detail beyond the schema, but since the schema fully covers it, the baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional semantics needed for a single self-explanatory parameter.

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 uses specific verbs ('Drain', 'Returns') with a clear resource ('canvas interaction events from hit regions'). It explicitly enumerates the event types (hover, click, drag, wheel, double-click) and payloads (positions, deltas), which distinguishes it from the sibling imgui_drain_events by focusing specifically on canvas/hit-region interaction events.

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 states 'Drain' and 'Events are consumed on read,' which clearly implies a destructive-read pattern, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling imgui_drain_events, nor when to use this versus alternative event-access approaches. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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