describe_canvas_mcps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool's informational nature, scope, and that it includes mounting instructions. Since it's a read-only description tool, this is adequate, though it doesn't explicitly mention output format or that it's non-destructive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, content, and when to use. It fully equips the agent to understand what this meta-tool provides, without needing additional details about return structures.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no input schema to explain, and the description correctly doesn't attempt to document nonexistent parameters.

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 ('Describes') and identifies the exact resource ('three Canvas-Agent MCPs (core/admin/extras)') and content ('what tools live in each, and how to mount the other two'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all individual Canvas operations.

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 provides explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this when a user asks about Canvas-Agent's capabilities, or when you need a Canvas tool that doesn't appear to be registered — it's likely in admin or extras.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it and even hints at the alternative (searching registered tools).

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