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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly states the tool does not modify the board, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as performance, limits, or what happens when scope='selection' and no selection exists. The description is minimally transparent.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the format or content of the returned 'text summary', nor does it specify what happens when optional parameters are omitted. This is a significant gap for an analysis tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'scope' parameter by explaining each enum value, but provides no context for pageId, boardId, or sessionId. This partial coverage justifies a score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'canvas', and specifies the scope options (image, page, selection) that distinguish it from sibling tools like convyy_draw or convyy_apply_template which modify the board.

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 implies usage is for reading only ('Does not modify the board') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like convyy_pages or convyy_draw. No alternative names or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the server owns the layout, inherits preset style, grid grows to fit content, and the user provides structure. It lacks detail on side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior) but covers the main behavioral traits.

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 three sentences with clear front-loading: first defines purpose, second explains the user/server division, third gives a specific usage hint. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 5 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow well. It explains the list discovery mechanism and the flexible structure input. However, it does not describe what the tool returns after applying a template (e.g., success message, ID), which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the 'list' parameter's purpose (discover templates) and the 'structure' parameter's role ('you provide the structure'). It also lists template names while schema already provides enum, but the context of 'adaptive' templates enriches meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('named, adaptive template'), listing concrete template IDs (cjm, swot, etc.). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like convyy_analyze or convyy_draw by focusing on template application.

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 implies when to use the tool (to apply a template) and mentions calling with {list:true} to see available templates, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to sibling tools (e.g., when to use convyy_draw instead).

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description comprehensively explains server ownership of ids/styling, user ownership of layout, sticky square rule, arrow routing, and thinking signal 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 long but efficiently structured: purpose first, then rules, then usage note. Every sentence adds necessary value 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?

Covers drawing and layout thoroughly, though lacks explicit return value or error handling. Given no output schema, it's nearly complete for the tool's purpose.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds extensive meaning with element type details, color tokens, layout rules, and usage instructions beyond basic schema.

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 clearly states the tool renders board content from primitives and distinguishes it from named templates, specifying it's for anything that doesn't fit a template.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (anything not fitting a named template) and provides a thinking signal for initial empty call, plus detailed layout rules.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It mentions 'switch the active page' implying mutation, but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or boundaries. The return data is noted, but behavioral traits are insufficiently disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear action enumeration and return description. No filler, but could list parameters more explicitly.

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 has 5 parameters and 3 actions, with no output schema. The description vaguely states return values but omits boardId and does not detail action-specific behavior or parameter dependencies. Barely adequate given the complexity.

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 40% (only name and pageId have descriptions). The description adds context by mentioning 'active page id' and 'session binding', aiding understanding of pageId and sessionId, but boardId remains unexplained. Partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 specifies the tool manages board pages with three explicit actions (list, create, switch) and states the return values. This differentiates it from sibling tools like convyy_draw or convyy_analyze, but the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic.

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 implies usage through the action enum, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or any prerequisites. It tells what the tool does but not when to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'revert' without explaining what happens to the reverted data, whether the action is destructive, or if it has any side effects.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, but it could be slightly more efficient by omitting redundant phrasing like 'of the active runtime session' if that is implicit.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes an 'AI batch', what 'revert' entails, or how to determine which session is active, making it incomplete for safe and correct use.

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 has two parameters (boardId, sessionId) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning for these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 clearly states the action ('revert'), the specific resource ('last AI batch'), and the context ('active runtime session'). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like convvy_analyze or convvy_draw.

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 implies usage for undoing the last AI batch but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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