canva_get_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'With thumbnails' hints at return content, but it says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, whether thumbnails are URLs or inline data, or pagination behavior for large designs.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the return-value hint front-loaded. Efficient and readable, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps it leaves.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values in depth, and 'with thumbnails' partially covers that. However, with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the definition leaves the identifier semantics and any failure/pagination behavior unspecified.

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 single required parameter (design_id) has no description in the schema. The description only implies 'a design' is referenced, giving no format, source, or constraints for the identifier, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (list the pages of a design) and adds a return-content hint (with thumbnails), which is enough to distinguish it from canva_get_design and canva_list_designs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus canva_get_design or canva_export, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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