memory_canvas

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (title, openWorldHint=false), the description adds key behavioral details: output is a deterministic grid with labeled arrow-tipped edges, vault_path confines writing, and filenames are sanitized. This provides good transparency for a read-only export operation.

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 tightly written (~80 words), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds unique value. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers core behavior (what becomes nodes/edges, filtering, file writing). The return value when vault_path is omitted is explained as 'canvas object,' which is somewhat vague but acceptable. Performance or size limitations are 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context on output structure ('memory_links become labeled, arrow-tipped edges') but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what schema descriptions already provide.

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 exports the memory graph as a JSON Canvas 1.0 .canvas file, which opens as a spatial board in Obsidian. This specific verb and resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_export, memory_export_dataset, and memory_export_vault.

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 mentions optional filtering and two modes (return object or write file) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative export tools. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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