读取画布节点

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations – node data retains the original upstream structure – but says nothing about pagination, volume, or ordering for a bulk read.

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 scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the 0%-documented required parameters, which the description does not address, leaving the definition only minimally complete for a two-parameter bulk fetch.

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%, so the two required parameters (project_uuid, canvas_uuid) have only titles and no documentation. The description only obliquely references the canvas and never explains project_uuid or how the two identifiers scope the read, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource ('读取画布全部节点' – read all canvas nodes), which is clearly distinct from the sibling pavo_get_node that fetches a single node. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings in text.

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 phrase '全部节点' (all nodes) implicitly signals bulk retrieval versus a single-node read, which gives some usage context. However, the description never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer one over the other, leaving guidance implied rather than explicit.

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