Check Excalidraw canvas

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool checks validity, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, whether it returns a boolean/result/throws, or what 'valid bounded standard document' means in practice.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, though the unexplained jargon 'bounded standard document' slightly reduces clarity for an agent.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent can expect. It does not describe the return value, success/failure behavior, or validation criteria, leaving a significant gap for a tool that appears to be a validation check.

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%, and both parameters have detailed descriptions with examples and usage caveats. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's action ('Checks') and resource ('canvas'), and adds specificity by saying it verifies a canvas is a 'valid bounded standard document.' This goes beyond the tautological title, though the term 'bounded standard document' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not elaborated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_canvas, open_canvas, capture_canvas, or report_canvas_capture. The description gives no context for the intended workflow or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer when validation is appropriate.

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