canva_get_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load; it usefully discloses that the response includes edit and view URLs plus a thumbnail, which tells the agent this is a non-mutating lookup returning usable links. It says nothing about permission scopes, behavior on an invalid/missing design_id, or rate 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key return information (edit/view URLs, thumbnail) is placed immediately after the action, so nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and implies read-only access. It is slightly short of complete because it omits how a design_id is obtained and what happens on failure, and it does not enumerate the full set of returned metadata fields.

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% and the only parameter, design_id, is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The meaning of a design_id is fairly self-evident, but the description adds no format, sourcing, or example guidance.

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 concrete verb and resource (get design) and names the payload (metadata, edit/view URLs, thumbnail), which separates it from canva_list_designs and canva_get_pages. It never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must still infer which design-access tool to pick in a given situation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus canva_get_pages, canva_list_designs, or canva_open_editor, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an existing design_id. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

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