Read a KLYPIX canvas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses that image assets are attached up to a specific cap (first 8 images under ~5MB each), with larger canvases falling back to filenames, and that multiple input forms are accepted. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of the tool's behavior and limits.

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 information-dense but well-organized: it front-loads what the tool does, then details the image cap, then gives the input guidance. Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains both the return content (structured markdown with cards, graph, wikilinks, tags) and the image-asset behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the result 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter at 100%, describing title/filename/path options. The description adds meaningful nuance by saying the canvas TITLE can be passed directly and that listing/searching is unnecessary, which clarifies the intended calling pattern beyond the schema's raw parameter description.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('a KLYPIX canvas'), and precisely what the output contains (structured markdown with cards, connection graph, wikilinks, and tags). It also differentiates itself from sibling search/list tools by stating the caller does not need to list or search first.

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 gives clear usage context: pass the canvas title directly, and there's no need to list or search first. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for cases like finding a canvas by content, but the direct-input guidance is concrete and actionable.

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