get_canvas_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'Returns' without stating side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Since it is a getter, being read-only is inferred but not explicitly disclosed.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loads the core action and resource.

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 specifies exactly what information is returned (metadata, dimensions, palette), which is sufficient for a simple getter. It does not need to explain return structure since there is no output schema, and the tool's purpose is fully covered.

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 fully describes the only parameter (canvas_id as 'ID of the target canvas'). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so this falls at the baseline for high 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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'metadata, dimensions, and palette information for a specific canvas', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_canvases (which lists all) and set_pixel (which modifies pixels).

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 implies usage for retrieving info about a single canvas, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not guidance. Given the context, it is adequate but not explicit.

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