Get Edgeless Canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact scope of data returned (edgeless blocks, surface elements, aggregate bounding box, per-type counts) and the 'full canvas' guarantee, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: what is returned, the included data, and when to use it. No redundant or vague wording.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context: it names the exact content categories, the aggregate calculations, and the intended use case. The output schema covers return value details, so the description is fully sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both docId and workspaceId, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description does not reinforce parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient, yielding the baseline score.

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 resource ('full edgeless canvas'), enumerates what is included (blocks with xywh, surface elements, bounding box, counts), and clearly distinguishes it from general read tools by focusing on the edgeless canvas layout.

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 provides an explicit usage scenario: 'Use this when you need to understand canvas layout end-to-end before placing new elements.' It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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