get_canonical

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the two source stores merged, the exclusion of ephemeral checkpoints, and automatic alias resolution. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, but with annotations covering safety this is solid.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers source/merge details and the usage instruction. Each sentence carries information, though the parenthetical store references and alias example add some density that a reader must parse before reaching the actionable guidance.

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, the description does supply a high-level account of what is returned. Combined with the source-merge and exclusion details, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though more on result shape/ordering would fully close the 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 both parameters are already documented, including the alias-resolution note on 'project'. The description only reinforces aliases with an example ('mesh-dev == evc-mesh') and adds no new syntax or constraint for 'topic'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Query the canonical knowledge layer'), and enumerates the concrete returns (curated facts, decisions, strategy docs). It also distinguishes itself from memory-type siblings by naming the merge sources and explicitly excluding ephemeral session-checkpoints, so an agent can route between get_memory/recall and this without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit call-to-action: 'Call before authoring any doc that might conflict with existing canonical knowledge.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name a specific alternative (e.g. get_canonical_updates vs this), so it stops short of a 5.

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