pixel_view_canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: upscaling behavior (nearest-neighbor to ~512px), return format (text summary plus image), and error handling ('Error: ...'). This goes beyond the 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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, scaling behavior, usage context, return format, and error handling. No redundant or ambiguous language.

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?

For a simple view tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, when to use, scaling behavior, return type (text+image), and possible error. No gaps remain for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (path and scale), so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description mentions 'unless an explicit scale is given', which implicitly refers to the scale parameter but adds little beyond the schema's description. Given schema coverage is effectively high (schema has descriptions), 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 clearly states the tool renders a canvas as an image to see its current state. It uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('canvas'), and the sibling tools list shows other view-related tools, but this one is distinct as it shows the current state. The description also provides usage context ('after a series of edits').

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 explicitly says to use this tool after a series of edits to check work, giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools include other view functions like pixel_view_frames. Still, the provided usage guidance is helpful.

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