get_canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (canvas plus rev/updated_at/updated_by) and a key concurrency behavior (409 if the page drifted). It does not explicitly state read-only or permissions, but 'Get' and the absence of side effects imply safety.

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: the first front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds actionable workflow guidance about rev. No wasted words, and 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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains returned fields and the recommended base_rev flow. It is self-contained enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it omits explicit error handling for the GET call itself.

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 only parameter, page_id, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description implies page_id identifies the page via 'for a page', but adds no constraints, format, or examples. This is minimal compensation for the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full canvas document') scoped to a page, enumerating contents ('size, appearance, and every element') plus metadata fields. This clearly distinguishes it from write/update siblings like set_canvas, patch_canvas, and add_element.

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 advises keeping the returned 'rev' and passing it as 'base_rev' on the next write to detect drift via HTTP 409, establishing a clear read-before-write workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context is strong.

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