remarkable_canvas

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the canvas is read-only with page navigation and explains different behavior for clients with/without MCP Apps support, plus return of embedded PNG for non-interactive clients. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear <usecase>, <instructions>, <parameters>, and <examples> sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's purpose, usage, parameter details, behavioral differences, and includes examples. It is complete for a read-only tool with interactive capabilities, though error handling or conditional behavior when document is not found is not mentioned.

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%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: document can be name or path (with hint to use remarkable_browse), page is 1-indexed with default 1, and examples are provided. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Open a reMarkable page in an interactive canvas viewer' and distinguishes from sibling remarkable_image for plain image extraction, giving a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (interactive viewing) vs alternatives (use remarkable_image for plain extraction) and advises using remarkable_browse to find documents. It does not explicitly list exclusions but implies the alternative use case.

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