View a canvas as a spatial board (whiteboard-in-chat)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the operation is read-only, that it may declare an experimental MCP Apps UI resource, that no host has been observed rendering it, that the text summary is the verified path, and warns not to promise a visual board. This is unusually transparent about limitations and fallback behavior.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, return content, UI resource caveat, verified fallback, and usage condition. The important caveat about not promising a visual board is front-and-center rather than buried. No filler is present.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: a text summary plus a structured render spec of cards, containers, and connection arrows. It also covers the experimental UI side and the fallback behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already described in the schema with its default value. The description reinforces the default but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: "Read any .klypix canvas/brain as a SPATIAL BOARD" and clearly distinguishes the tool from a plain query by emphasizing that it returns a spatial render spec, not just content. It also clarifies the default target (project brain), removing ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 description explicitly says "Use when the user asks to SEE the canvas/brain/board layout, not just query it," which provides a clear when-to-use boundary. However, it does not name the specific sibling tool to use for pure querying, so the guidance is strong but not as complete as it could be.

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