canvas_find_sections

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations - that the result is section IDs rather than content - but omits matching semantics (case sensitivity, substring vs exact) and how text and type filters combine.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the criteria come before the example enumeration. The trailing '...' list of types is slightly loose but earns its place by hinting at the accepted enum values.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves the matching semantics of contains_text and the combination rule between text and type undefined, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates partly by enumerating plausible section_types values (h1, h2, h3, any_header, list, table), which the bare 'array of strings' schema does not, but contains_text matching rules and the canvas_id parameter are left unexplained.

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 names a specific verb (find), resource (section IDs in a canvas), and the filter criteria (text and/or type). It clearly distinguishes the tool from write-oriented siblings like canvas_edit and canvas_create, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in a canvas by text and/or type'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over canvas_read, no prerequisites, and no note about whether results can be fed into canvas_edit.

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