canva_list_designs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — a 10-minute cache, which signals possible staleness — but omits permissions, pagination behavior for the continuation token, and what 'refresh' actually changes.

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 words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for a 3-parameter tool with pagination and a refresh flag.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key behavior (pagination, refresh semantics, return shape, auth) unaddressed. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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% for all 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely hints at 'query' (via 'Search') and 'refresh' (via the cache note); 'continuation' pagination is entirely unexplained, leaving the semantics of the parameters largely undocumented.

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+resource ('Search/list designs') scoped to 'the connected Canva account', which is clear and distinguishable from the get/list siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like canva_get_design or canva_list_folder.

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 gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for broad design search versus the targeted lookup of canva_get_design or the folder scoping of canva_list_folder.

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