dify_canvas_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does well: it lists the exact fields returned in each mode (id/title/type/notes/coordinates, draft hash; code/prompts/variables/coordinates), so it effectively surfaces the return shape that a missing output schema would have provided. It adds nothing, however, about permissions or auth, read-only guarantees, or what the draft hash is for; that matters because it is likely an optimistic-concurrency token for dify_canvas_patch.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core behavior (the two modes) is front-loaded. The parenthetical field lists are compact and replace what would otherwise be an output schema.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent actually needs: what each mode returns and what selecting it means. The one meaningful gap is the role of the draft hash relative to dify_canvas_patch — a single clause about read-before-write intent would make it fully complete.

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 the baseline score is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema for nodeId by explaining the mode switch and the payload each mode returns. For app and alias, it gives no extra semantics at all, so overall it stays at the baseline for a definition where the schema already explains everything.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reads a workflow draft) and splits it into two clearly described modes: index/hash without nodeId, full node definition with nodeId. What is missing is only explicit differentiation from siblings like dify_canvas_patch and dify_canvas_publish, but a read is clearly distinct from patch/publish from the names alone.

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 conditional guidance for choosing between modes: omit nodeId to get an overview plus draft hash, or supply nodeId to get full detail. It does not, however, say when this tool should be used instead of siblings such as dify_canvas_patch, or state the recommended read-before-edit workflow, so no exclusion guidance is offered.

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