List Excalidraw canvases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Lists canvases,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention output format, behavior when the project is missing or empty, or any other runtime characteristics.

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 five-word sentence with no redundancy. The key action 'Lists' is front-loaded, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter listing tool.

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 is simple and its only parameter is fully documented, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description is adequate for a basic invocation, though it leaves questions about return value shape and edge-case behavior unanswered.

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%, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no new detail about projectPath beyond implying its role in scoping to 'one project.'

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 ('Lists') and resource ('canvases') with a scope ('in one project'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list_projects by identifying canvas objects rather than project objects as the subject.

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 'in one project' gives useful context and implies that a projectPath is needed, but the description does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced as an alternative.

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