list_canvas_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes what the tool does but lacks details on side effects, authorization requirements, pagination, or output format completeness. The term 'notes' may conflict with the tool name 'canvas items', but overall it adequately conveys primary behavior.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains what the tool does, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words and well-structured.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description satisfactorily tells what is returned and when to use it. It could mention pagination or ordering but is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single required parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., where to obtain the UUID), but no significant gaps exist.

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 clearly states the tool lists notes on the shared canvas and details the attributes returned (positions, sizes, stacking order). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notes (spatial vs non-spatial) and placement tools.

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 explicitly advises using the tool before placing or arranging notes, providing clear context. It does not name alternative tools but implies that for spatial organization understanding, this is the tool to use.

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