读取项目画布

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the read is aggregate in nature (whole canvas graph plus latest version and link), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about authentication, size limits, or what happens with a stale or missing canvas.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the returned artifacts; there is no filler or repetition. It is dense and readable, though the leading 显式 is an unusual qualifier that carries little information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return shapes, yet it partially duplicates that by enumerating returned fields. The real gaps are the undocumented parameter semantics and the absence of any routing guidance among the many sibling read tools.

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?

Both required parameters (project_uuid, canvas_uuid) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions either one. It does not explain the relationship between project and canvas identifiers or whether the canvas must belong to the given project, leaving the agent to guess at the most error-prone part of the call.

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 gives a specific verb (显式读取) and resources (项目和画布), then enumerates what comes back: native nodes, connections, latest version and an official link. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as pavo_list_nodes or pavo_list_connections, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 pavo_script_get_project, pavo_list_projects, or the granular list/get node and connection tools. The word 显式 hints at an intentional full read but never states a selection rule or precondition.

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