Inspect Canvas

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

The description clearly states the tool's actions (detect library, query scene graph, return annotated screenshot) but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or mention any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden; while it is informative, it could be enhanced with a read-only statement.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words or unnecessary detail. Every word adds value.

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 explains the core purpose well but lacks details about the return format (is it an image, JSON, or both?). With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'annotated screenshot' means and any potential limitations (e.g., dependency on library detection).

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds overall context (e.g., grid spacing) but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. 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 states a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (canvas element), detailing actions: auto-detect rendering library, query scene graph, return annotated screenshot with grid overlay. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'screenshot' or 'get_element'.

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 implies usage for canvas debugging but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. No guidance on when to prefer this over 'screenshot' or 'snapshot' for canvas elements.

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