Diagnose within a Vedha canvas

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is thread-scoped, stays inside one canvas, and returns guardrails plus a dimension breakdown.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated first and the alternative routing stated second. Minor redundancy exists between 'for one canvas', 'Thread-scoped: stays inside one canvas', and 'Never use it for cross-canvas questions', but the structure remains efficient.

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?

The description does a good job with when-to-use and scoping, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, with 0% schema description coverage and three parameters, the lack of detail about the 'dimension' and optional 'value' parameters leaves a meaningful 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely references 'canvas' and 'dimension'. It does not explain the optional 'value' parameter, define what 'dimension' should be, or clarify how canvas_id relates to the guardrails and breakdown.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('guardrails and a dimension breakdown for one canvas'), and ties it to a causal 'why' question. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the cross-canvas tool, vedha_get_atlas_review.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: for a causal 'why' question within a single canvas. It also gives an explicit exclusion and alternative: never use it for cross-canvas questions, escalate to vedha_get_atlas_review instead.

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