Report Excalidraw canvas capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Settles' conveys that a pending capture transitions to a resolved state, but the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the pending capture is removed from a queue, whether settling is idempotent, or what happens on an unknown commandId). Error behavior and post-conditions are absent.

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 14-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Settles one pending Canvas Harness capture'). Every word earns its place, though given the tool's complexity as a result-reporting callback, the terseness borders on under-specification rather than elegant compression.

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 report/settle operation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description omits several things an agent needs: how this relates to capture_canvas (the obvious initiating sibling), what makes a capture 'pending', how commandId is obtained, and what happens on invalid or repeated settlement. The rich schema covers the outcome payload structure but not the surrounding workflow.

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%, and the description adds nothing about either parameter. The oneOf structure in the schema makes the outcome parameter fairly self-evident (succeeded with evidence vs. failed with message), but the semantic link between commandId and 'the pending capture' is never stated anywhere — the agent must guess that commandId identifies which capture to settle.

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 names a specific verb ('Settles') and resource ('one pending Canvas Harness capture'), which clearly distinguishes this from the initiating counterpart capture_canvas among the siblings. The term 'settles' accurately maps to the schema's outcome reporting structure. Some jargon ('Canvas Harness', 'bound Browser View') is unexplained, and it could more explicitly state that this is the reporting/callback step with a visible result.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'settles one pending ... capture' suggests the agent should call this when a capture is pending and awaiting resolution. There is no explicit guidance about sequencing relative to capture_canvas, no mention of when a capture becomes pending, and no exclusions or stated alternatives. The name prefix 'report_' carries some of the inferential weight.

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