Scan the active canvas for text collisions, layer overlaps, and boundary overflows, then get actionable recommendations to resolve spacing and overlap problems.
Audits the current active canvas for text collisions, layer overlaps, and boundary overflows. Returns actionable recommendations for fixing overlaps and spacing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey a meaningful trait by framing output as 'recommendations for fixing' rather than applying fixes, implying a non-destructive analysis operation, but it never states outright that the canvas is not modified, nor does it mention permissions, cost, or limits.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler: the purpose and audit scope are front-loaded, followed by the return value. Every clause 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?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names what is inspected and roughly what comes back. Its only gap is the missing clarification that the operation is read-only and does not itself apply any fixes.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the documented baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify or omit.
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?
States a specific verb (audits), the exact target (the current active canvas), and enumerates the checks performed: text collisions, layer overlaps, boundary overflows. No sibling tool in the list performs an audit, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.
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 phrase 'current active canvas' implies the scope and the natural use case (run it to inspect the active design), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or referral to any sibling tool such as a fix/alignment tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.