Analyze Canvas

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.