Read a KLYPIX canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states that the live read includes unsaved changes and the person's view state, that images are capped at 4 per answer with downscaling and named exclusions, that lock-protected cards are omitted with a count reported, and it warns that card text is data rather than instructions (prompt-injection defense).

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 mode-dependent behavior is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on of parentheticals, em-dashes and ALL-CAPS emphasis that is hard to parse in one pass. Several clauses (photo sizing rationale, 'Inside:' line) are useful but could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description fully specifies what comes back: every card with id, the connection graph, wikilinks, tags, status, comments, saved link/video/photo readings, attached images with labels, and how locked cards are reported. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents the accepted forms (title, filename, path). The description largely restates the same accepted identifiers ("Pass the canvas TITLE as KLYPIX shows it... a filename, vault-relative path, or absolute path also work"), adding little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('read a canvas') and distinguishes two operating modes (live when KLYPIX is open vs. structured markdown otherwise). It also differentiates itself from the sibling read_card_contents by scoping itself to the canvas level and routing card interiors elsewhere.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent it does NOT need to list or search first, and directs card contents to read_card_contents with the ids printed here. It does not, however, contrast itself with other canvas-related siblings such as canvas_view or list_canvases, so the alternative-selection guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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