Get Edgeless Canvas

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about coverage—what element types are included, that positions are returned as xywh, and that bounding box and per-type counts are aggregated. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, or hidden/deleted elements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and return scope, then ends with a practical usage cue.

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 a present output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough additional context about what the tool returns and when to use it. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 docId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that the tool reads a document's canvas. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Read") and a precisely scoped resource ("full edgeless canvas"), then enumerates what is included: edgeless-positioned blocks with xywh plus all surface elements. This scope distinguishes it from narrower siblings like list_surface_elements or get_doc, even without naming them explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: "Use this when you need to understand canvas layout end-to-end before placing new elements." It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended context is clear.

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